One of the most striking aspects of Lewis’ study is the bold claims he makes on Pantycelyn’s behalf. He goes so far as to claim Pantycelyn as the first romantic and modern poet (bardd rhamantus a’r bardd modern) in Europe, as well as the forerunner of the psychoanalytic method – ‘[Williams] is the great discoverer of the subconscious mind, the seat of the affections, and the first scientific poet of the modern mind in Europe’.[1]According to Lewis, Pantycelyn’s romanticism is seen in his introspective individualism and concern for the inner emotional life: ‘[Williams] was the first poet to turn internal experiences and states of the soul into the principle subject of poetry … Essentially, Williams was not a religious poet, but a poet of the soul, a poet of his own experiences’.[2] It is this drive to convey inner experience that, according to Lewis, allows Pantycelyn to break away from the classical traditions and forms of Welsh poetry to the use of free verse.[3] According to Lewis, Pantycelyn’s disrespect for the Welsh language stems from this desire to express the nature of the mystical union between the soul and the divine:
[Pantycelyn] had no respect for words, he mangled and mutilated them … Not only did he have no respect for words, he had no respect for poetry itself … It was simply a medium for him, a finite human medium, and so imperfect.[4]
Poetry, for William Williams, was simply an imperfect means for expressing the inward experience of divine love:
Ac ni all’ i fyth fynegi,
…
Pa mor hyfryd, pa mor felys,
Pa mor gryf ei gariad yw.[5]
[And I shall never be able to express ... how lovely, how sweet, how strong his love is]
Given that Williams freely admits in such lines of poetry that one cannot express with words the experience of divine love, this inexpressible experience of God is understood by Lewis as evidence of Williams’ mystic and romantic inclinations.
Lewis formulates his methodology based on the the tripartite division of the ascent to God from Saint Bonaventure’s De triplici via (1620s) – a form of mystical theology which emphasises the purgative (ffordd y puro), illuminative (ffordd y goleuni), and unitive (ffordd yr uno) stages as a soteriological framework. Spiritual union with the divine being is seen as the culmination of this process. This framework forms the basic structure and methodology of Lewis’ approach to Pantycelyn’s published writings, with a particular focus upon the progressive conversion narrative of the epic Theomemphus (1764). The respective stages, for Lewis, are reflected in Pantycelyn’s literary and theological development – the purgative stretching from 1744 to 1752 and seen especially in his collections of hymns Aleluia (1744–7) and Hosanna i Fab Dafydd (1751–4), as well as in the epic poem Golwg ar Deyrnas Crist (1756). The illuminative period proceeds from 1752 to 1764, seen most clearly in Caniadau y rhai sydd ar y Mor o Wydr (1762). This is the period, according to Lewis, where Pantycelyn gives considerable attention to ‘the Dark Night of the Soul’ (Nos yr Enaid) – a phase which prepares the Christian for ‘perfect union with God’.[6] According to Lewis, the unitive phase represents the pinnacle of Williams’ literary career, especially as it finds expression in Theomemphus (1764) and the hymn collections Ffarwel Weledig (1763–9) and Gloria in Excelsis (1771–2). These latter works represent the mystical union of the soul with the divine being and are the highpoint of Williams’ theological and literary expression.
For Saunders Lewis, Pantycelyn’s mysticism stems from his own experiences and his observations of the experiences of others in society meetings. Williams develops his understanding of the experience meetings or seiadau in his practical work Drws y Society Profiad (1777). According to Lewis, the purpose of the society meetings for Pantycelyn was the provision of emotional and pastoral care for those converted during the revival. Lewis argues that ‘confession and psychological analysis’ played a central role in the society meetings and their principal purpose was ‘systematic analysis of the state of the soul’.[7] Williams, according to Lewis, was the principal founder of the Seiat (experience meeting) in Wales, and his published writings represent ‘the most detailed and accurate analysis of the adolescent state of mind during and after conversion in literature’.[8] Williams’ interests in the absolute inwardness of religious experience and the immanent presence of the divine in the human psyche were therefore derived from his observations and experiences as a leader of the society meetings in Wales. However, for Lewis, this emphasis on mystical experience is at variance with Williams’ own theological perspective:
In his theology, and philosophical ideas, Williams embraced Calvinism entirely. His psychology, the fruit of his own experiences and free thought, is thoroughly anti-Calvinistic. [Yet] he never saw the inconsistency.[9]
Lewis does not consider the possibility that Williams’ mysticism actually emerged as a consequence of his Calvinism – he sees only antithesis and contradiction between them. The soul searching of the Methodist societies, for Lewis, is at odds with the evangelical theology of the Protestant Reformation. For Lewis, the introspective experiential theology of Williams Pantycelyn is much more akin to the mystical theology of Saint Bonaventure (1221–74), Saint Teresa of Ávila (1515–82), and Saint John of the Cross (1542–91).[10]
Even though Lewis devotes considerable energy to painting William Williams as a mystical writer, he nonetheless acknowledges the influence of the English Puritans on Pantycelyn’s theology. Williams, he argues, ‘had no background in Welsh culture, and never learnt respect for the traditions of the [Welsh] language’.[11] In a letter written to Thomas Charles in 1791 Williams confesses his debt to books by the Puritans among others – ‘Dr Goodwin, Dr Owen, Dr Gill, Marshall, Hervey, Usher’. Saunders Lewis makes the shrewd observation that ‘they are almost all English [works]’.[12] However the most significant debt, according to Lewis, was not to high Calvinists such as John Owen (1616–83) and John Gill (1697–1771) but to John Bunyan (1628–88) and the theme of spiritual pilgrimage – for Lewis this debt is especially seen in his earliest hymns Aleluia.[13] Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress (1678), one of the most significant works of Christian literature, exercised considerable influence over Pantycelyn’s practical theology.[14] The idea of the Christian life as a pilgrimage is pervasive in Pantycelyn’s hymnology. It is a vivid picture of the work of sanctification (the progressive change wrought in the life of the Christian by the Holy Spirit, leading to moral and spiritual conformity with Christ). However, Lewis sees the theme of pilgrimage in Pantycelyn’s hymns as a part of the mystical process leading to unification with the divine being – the pilgrimage forms a part of the purgative stage leading on to the illuminative. This process of purification – the despair, the veiling of God’s presence, the struggles of prayer, the hardness of heart, the continual pain of life, and the experience of spiritual thirst and dereliction – is understood by Lewis as Pantycelyn’s spiritual purgatory in this life.[15]
One of Lewis’ more interesting observations concerns Pantycelyn’s belief in the unity of body and soul.[16] According to Lewis the philosophy of Arbitrius Liber, the defender of libertarian free will in Theomemphus, is derived from Cartesian dualism – the belief in the independence or the autonomy of the mind from material reality. Williams undermines this philosophy in Theomemphus and ‘returns to the best form of Christian thought, the idea established firmly by Saint Thomas Aquinas [1225–74] – that the unity of body and soul is essential in man’.[17] Lewis argues that Pantycelyn’s emphasis on the religious affections is a consequence of his belief in the psychosomatic unity of body and soul.[18] This belief represents a significant departure not only from the philosophy of Descartes, but from the Platonic tradition in modern Europe:
The meaning of all this is that there is no dualism in man. He is not a body and a soul as all the philosophers of the Platonic tradition in Europe have taught; but a psychosomatic unity (corf-enaid), a sentient spirit (ysbryd synhwyrol), as in the Aristotelian and Christian tradition.[19]
Here Lewis draws upon the philosophical problem of universals and particulars to interpret Pantycelyn’s view of human nature. The Platonic tradition with its emphasis on universals and the world of forms stressed the spiritual over and above the physical. Whereas Plato’s student Aristotle grounded his thinking in the particulars of reality – the observable world of matter and motion. According to Lewis, the Aristotelian tradition exercised considerable influence over Christian theology, especially as it found expression in the Summa Theologiæ (1265–74) of Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–74). Pantycelyn’s departure from the Platonic tradition – his emphasis on sense experience and religious affections – is what makes him stand out for Lewis as ‘the first Welsh poet of the modern mind’.[20]
The transition from Neo-Platonism to the application of Aristotelian philosophy in the form Lockean empiricism and scientific investigation is seen in Pantycelyn’s concern for experiential religion – an experimental and applied faith, worked out in practice, in the real world of particulars. For Lewis, this pragmatic, experiential religion is reflected in Pantycelyn’s departure from the classical forms of Welsh poetry to the use of free verse: ‘Before [Williams Pantycelyn], poetry was august and dignified, but as rigid as cast iron. [Then] it was broken in the heat of his experience. It flowed like molten metal through the furnaces of his hymns’.[21] All of this ties in with Lewis’ central concern to present Pantycelyn as a romantic-mystic poet who ‘wages war against the classicism of the eighteenth century’.[22] According to Lewis, Pantycelyn’s romanticism emerged because God was the subject of his experience and poetry, and because he was a mystic.[23] For Lewis, the mysticism, the heart religion, and the romanticism are inseparably tied together in the experience of spiritual union with God. This is the culmination of the threefold path, the unio mystica.
The delineation of one of the Calvinistic Methodist fathers as a Roman Catholic mystic has inevitably caused significant controversy among historians of religion. J. G. Moelwyn Hughes published several critical responses in the Welsh language periodical Y Brython between January and May in 1928, the year following the publication of Lewis’ study.[24] Hughes argues that union with Christ is not merely the culmination of the soteriological process, but something which is ‘a reality in the history and experience of all who believe’.[25] In a similar vein, R. Tudur Jones argued that Saunders Lewis had misunderstood Pantycelyn’s soteriology and that the use of de triplici via as a methodology did not accurately represent the theological tradition to which Pantycelyn belonged.[26] The ordo salutis (order of salvation) for Pantycelyn did not progress through the stages of the purgative, illuminative, and unitive, but rather paralleled the teaching of the Apostle Paul in Romans chapter eight beginning with predestination in eternity, progressing to effectual calling and justification in space and time, and culminating in glorification (See Romans 8:28–30).[27] The mystical union with Christ is not therefore something which takes place at the end of the Christian life, rather it pervades the whole soteriological purpose and application.[28] The Christian is chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, saved by Christ in space-time, and glorified with Christ in the eternal state, and is therefore mystically united to the person of Christ from eternity to eternity.[29] For R. Tudur Jones, Pantycelyn’s understanding of the order of salvation and the nature of spiritual union with Christ owes more to Pauline soteriology, particularly as it found expression in Puritan literature, than it does to Catholic mysticism.[30] In the words of E. Wyn James, ‘It is far more appropriate to place his spiritual thought and experience in the context of Puritan theology, since Pantycelyn may be rightly regarded as a full-blooded heir of the Puritans’.[31]
This drive to present Pantycelyn as an heir to the Puritans seriously challenges Lewis’ conception of Williams as a mystic and romantic writer. As Glyn Tegai Hughes observes, ‘[Williams] has been seductively presented as a forerunner of Romanticism, but his reading more plausibly reveals him as the heir of Puritanism, in its literary as well as its theological tradition’.[32] This understanding of Williams Pantycelyn as an eighteenth century Puritan has become the dominant method for interpreting Pantycelyn’s published writings or as Meredydd Evans puts it, ‘without any doubt, Pantycelyn’s works must be considered from a totally different perspective to that of Saunders Lewis’.[33]
With regard to Williams’ philosophy, Saunders Lewis reading of Pantycelyn’s within the Aristotelian tradition was challenged by J. Gwilym Jones in his 1969 study of Williams Pantycelyn. Where Lewis had argued for Pantycelyn’s departure from the platonic tradition, Jones argues that Pantycelyn was in fact a Platonist who despaired of this world and longed to embrace the ultimate reality of God in the world to come:
[Williams Pantycelyn] is a Platonist. This in itself does not, of course, preclude anybody from being a romantic … But Williams seems to have instinctively absorbed the most antipoetic elements in Plato’s philosophy … Williams’ lack of faith in his senses and in their inadequacy to apprehend God, the Reality, is as fundamental as Plato’s. This conviction provides one of the dominant themes of his poetry. He ceaselessly decries the world and its vain objects, and years for the One Object – precisely the same distinction as Plato draws between Beauty and beautiful things.[35]
According to Jones, the natural world in Pantycelyn’s thought is but a shadow of a higher reality – the particular examples of goodness and beauty find their highest expression in the divine being who is form of Beauty and Goodness. The tendency in Williams’ poetry to disparage the fallen world and to express a longing for the perfect world to come is understood by Jones as an indication of Pantycelyn’s Platonism. For Jones, this conception of Platonism stands in antithesis with the romanticism and with the type of mysticism described by Lewis – a mysticism that focuses on the inwardness of religious experience and the immanent presence of the divine within the natural world and the human psyche:
This attitude is in direct contrast to orthodox romanticism. Romantics and classicists alike follow Aristotle who, like Plato, believed in the immutable and undivided Oneness of the ultimate Reality, but unlike Plato, insisted that only by perceiving objects in their extensive varieties could Reality be conceived. The general principle depended on a knowledge of individual examples. To ignore and depreciate nature therefore obscured the conception of Truth. A knowledge of the supernatural was contingent on a sensuous and observant knowledge of nature.[36]
In other words, Williams’ tendency to disparage the natural world in favour of heavenly reality and the form of Beauty seen in the divine being frustrates any attempt to portray Williams in the light of an Aristotelian romanticism or mysticism.
Reflection upon the distinction between universals and particulars in Pantycelyn’s published writings has particular relevance to his theological outlook. Was Pantycelyn a Platonist or an Aristotelian? Perhaps it is simply the case that the antithesis between Plato and Aristotle has been overstated by historians of philosophy and religion. It could be argued that in Pantycelyn’s thought universals and particulars or, in theological language, transcendence and immanence coalesce – hence the variant readings of his published writings by two distinguished critics. The distinction between transcendence and immanence was the hot topic of twentieth century theology and remains a matter of contention today – adding a distinct note of relevance to Pantycelyn’s theology in relation to contemporary theological debates.[37] Williams it would seem was neither Platonist nor an Aristotelian, but perhaps a synthesis of both. It may be more appropriate to locate Williams’ thought within the context of the enlightenment and the emerging discussions in philosophy relating to experiential knowledge – particularly as advocated by John Locke.
While the theological concerns of Saunders’ Lewis’ critics are important, there is reason to suggest that this reactionary approach to interpreting Pantycelyn’s theological perspective is somewhat restrictive. Even though Lewis goes too far in saying that Pantycelyn was the first romantic poet in modern Europe, this does not exclude the possibility that Williams anticipates romanticism and may be seen as a pre-romantic poet. Similarly, although Williams was not a Roman Catholic mystic, there are nonetheless mystical tendencies in his theology.[34] While it is crucial to recognise the influence of Puritan and Reformed theology on Williams’ thought, it is also important to explore his published works in relation to other possible influences such as the Enlightenment, the theology of Jonathan Edwards, the mysticism of the Pietists and Moravians, and early evangelical thought, as well as to explore his ideas and religious philosophy in the light of the emergence of Romanticism and the critique of rationalism toward the end of the eighteenth century. In other words, a more fluid approach is needed to understand Pantycelyn’s thought – one that recognises the insights of multiple perspectives and duly appreciates the complexity of his theological life within the context of the emergence of evangelicalism during the eighteenth century.
Bibliography
Evans,
Meredydd, ‘Pantycelyn
a Thröedigaeth’, in Derec Llwyd Morgan (ed.), Meddwl a Dychymyg Williams Pantycelyn (Llandysul, 1991), pp. 55–81.
Hughes, Glyn Tegai, ‘Pantycelyn a’r Piwritaniaid’, in Derec Llwyd Morgan (ed.), Meddwl a Dychymyg Williams Pantycelyn
(Llandysul, 1991), pp. 31–54.
Hughes, Glyn Tegai, Williams Pantycelyn (Cardiff, 1983).
Hughes,
J. G. Moelwyn, Mr Saunders Lewis a
Williams Pantycelyn (Birkenhead, 1928).
James,
E. Wyn, ‘‘Blessed Jubil!’: Slavery Mission and the Millennial Dawn in the Work
of William Williams of Pantycelyn’, in John Kirk, Michael Brown, and Andrew
Noble (eds.), Cultures of Radicalism in
Britain and Ireland: Poetry and Song in the Age of Revolution (London &
New York, 2016), pp. 95–112.
Jones,
J. Gwylim, William Williams
(Caerdydd, 1969).
Jones,
R. M. (Bobi), ‘Pantycelyn: Y Cyfrinydd Athrawiaethol’,
in Cyfriniaeth Gymraeg (Caerdydd, 1994), pp. 78–132.
Jones,
R. Tudur, Saunders Lewis a Williams
Pantycelyn (Abertawe, 1987).
Lewis,
Saunders, Williams Pantycelyn
(Caerdydd, 1991).
[1]
Saunders Lewis, Williams Pantycelyn
(Caerdydd, 1991), pp. 17, 119, 213. Unless otherwise indicated, translations
from the original Welsh are my own.
[2]
Lewis, Williams Pantycelyn, p. 31.
[3]
Lewis, Williams Pantycelyn, pp. 217,
221.
[4]
Lewis, Williams Pantycelyn, p. 32–3.
[5]
Lewis, Williams Pantycelyn, p. 34.
[6]
Lewis, Williams Pantycelyn, p. 86.
[7]
Lewis, Williams Pantycelyn, p. 46.
[8]
Lewis, Williams Pantycelyn, p. 50.
[9]
Lewis, Williams Pantycelyn, p. 56.
Lewis makes similar comments about the inconsistency between Williams’
Calvinism and his mysticism in chapter eight (p.180), but never explains why
there should be an inconsistency between the two theological perspectives.
[10]
Each of these mystical writers are mentioned on several occasions by Saunders
Lewis. See Williams Pantycelyn, pp.
92, 167 (Sant Bonafentur),
46, 47n, 58n, 86n, 92, 174 (Santes
Teresa), 58n, 86, 86n, 88, 92, 184 (Sant Ieuan y Groes) respectively.
[11]
Lewis, Williams Pantycelyn, p. 63.
[12]
Lewis, Williams Pantycelyn, p. 64.
[13]
Lewis, Williams Pantycelyn, p. 69–70.
[14]
Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress was first
published in Welsh by Stephen Hughes as Taith neu Siwrnai y Pererin in
1688.
[15]
Lewis, Williams Pantycelyn, pp.
86–89, 193–195. Lewis suggests that Williams lacked the theology to explain
such experiences because of his Protestantism, but Protestant theology has
traditionally understood spiritual struggles as part of the sanctification
process within the Christian life.
[16]
Lewis, Williams Pantycelyn, pp.
125–7, 130.
[17]
Lewis, Williams Pantycelyn, p. 127.
[18]
Lewis, Williams Pantycelyn, pp.
128–9.
[19]
Lewis, Williams Pantycelyn, p. 130.
[20]
Lewis, Williams Pantycelyn, pp.
210–13. This reading of Pantycelyn has been challenged by J. Gwylim Jones in
his study of William Williams
(Caerdydd, 1969). Jones argues that Pantycelyn was in fact a Platonist who
despaired of this world and longed to embrace the ultimate reality of God in
heaven (see pp. 50–7 in particular). Perhaps the antithesis between Plato and
Aristotle has been overstated by historians of philosophy and religion. It
could be argued that in Pantycelyn’s thought universals and particulars or, theologically
speaking, transcendence and immanence coalesce – hence the variant readings of
his published writings by two distinguished critics.
[21]
Lewis, Williams Pantycelyn, p. 221.
[22]
Lewis, Williams Pantycelyn, p. 234.
[23]
Lewis, Williams Pantycelyn, p. 232.
[24]
These articles were published collectively by J. G. Moelwyn Hughes as Mr Saunders Lewis a Williams Pantycelyn
(Birkenhead, 1928).
[25]
Hughes, Mr Saunders Lewis a Williams
Pantycelyn, p. 15.
[26]
See R. Tudur Jones, Saunders Lewis a
Williams Pantycelyn (Abertawe, 1987).
[27]
Jones, Saunders Lewis a Williams
Pantycelyn, pp. 14–16.
[28]
Jones, Saunders Lewis a Williams
Pantycelyn, pp. 16–20.
[29]
The Apostle Paul is particularly emphatic about the centrality of union with
Christ throughout the Christian life. Phrases such as ‘in Christ’ (en Christō) and ‘in the Lord’ (en kuriō) occur hundreds of times over
in the Pauline corpus. See Ephesians 1:1–14 for an example of this pervasive
idea in Pauline theology.
[30]
Jones, Saunders Lewis a Williams
Pantycelyn, pp. 6–14. Jones mentions several Puritan theologians including
William Perkins (1558–1602), Thomas Goodwin (1600–80), Richard Sibbes
(1577–1635), William Gouge (1578–1653), John Preston (1587–1628), and John Owen
(1616–83).
[31]
E. Wyn. James, ‘‘Blessed Jubil!’: Slavery Mission and the Millennial Dawn in
the Work of William Williams of Pantycelyn’, in John Kirk, Michael Brown, and
Andrew Noble (eds.), Cultures of
Radicalism in Britain and Ireland: Poetry and Song in the Age of Revolution
(London & New York, 2016), pp. 95–112.
[32]
Glyn Tegai Hughes, Williams Pantycelyn (Cardiff,
1983), p. 5. See also his article, ‘Pantycelyn
a’r Piwritaniaid’, in Derec
Llwyd Morgan (ed.), Meddwl a Dychymyg Williams
Pantycelyn (Llandysul, 1991), pp. 31–54.
[33]
Meredydd Evans, ‘Pantycelyn a Thröedigaeth’,
in Derec Llwyd Morgan (ed.), Meddwl a
Dychymyg Williams Pantycelyn (Llandysul, 1991), p. 56.
[34]
The nature of Pantycelyn’s mysticism is discussed at considerable length by R.
M. (Bobi) Jones, ‘Pantycelyn: Y
Cyfrinydd Athrawiaethol’, in Cyfriniaeth Gymraeg (Caerdydd, 1994), pp. 78–131.
[35] John Gwilym Jones, William Williams (Caerdydd, 1969), pp. 51, 53.
[35] John Gwilym Jones, William Williams (Caerdydd, 1969), pp. 51, 53.
[36] Jones, William
Williams, p. 57.
[37] For an analysis of twentieth century theology as it
relates to the subjects of transcendence and immanence see Stanley J. Grenz
& Roger E. Olson, 20th
Century Theology: God & The World in a Transitional Age (Downers Grove,
IL, 1992).
No comments:
Post a Comment