A
good but very reticent friend who mostly lurks in these groups suggested that I
take a look at Crabbe's widely read book, _English_ _Synonymes_, and she was spot-on, as here is
what Crabbe has to say on the relationship between "fancy" and
"imagination":
"Fancy,
Imagination. — From what has already been said the distinction between fancy
and imagination, as operations of thought, will be obvious. Fancy, considered
as a power, simply brings the object to the mind or makes it appear; but
imagination, from image, in Latin imago, from the root found in imitari,
English imitate, is a power which presents the images or likenesses of things.
The fancy, therefore, only employs itself about things without regarding their
nature; but the imagination aims at tracing a resemblance and getting a true
copy. The fancy consequently forms combinations, either real or unreal, as
chance may direct; but the imagination is seldomer led astray. The fancy is
busy in dreams or when the mind is in a disordered state; but the imagination
is supposed to act when the intellectual powers are in full play.
The
fancy is employed on light and trivial objects which are present to the senses;
the imagination soars above all vulgar objects and carries us from the world of
matter into the world of spirits, from time present to the time to come.
A
milliner or mantua-maker may employ her fancy in the decorations of a cap or
gown; but the poet's imagination depicts everything grand, everything bold, and
everything remote.
Although
Mr. Addison has thought proper, for his convenience, to use the words fancy and
imagination promiscuously when writing on this subject, yet the distinction, as
above pointed out. has been observed both in familiar discourse and in writing.
We say that we fancy, not that we imagine, that wo see or hear something; the
pleasures of the imagination, not of the fancy." END QUOTE
Crabbe's
definition would be of particular interest to us who study JA, as his
influential book was first published in 1792, when JA was 15 and was already
embarked on her career as a writer, and we know from a variety of evidence that
Crabbe was very much on her radar screen during her entire writing career. And
she would particularly have enjoyed his no-nonsense, clear way of writing---no
fancy (ha ha) Latinate verbiage to cloud his meaning, mostly straightforward
Anglo-Saxon words served his purposes very well. So, I think it extremely
likely that JA had Crabbe's definitions in mind as she wrote Letter 91,
especially when I note that JA _explicitly_ refers to Crabbe _three_ times in
Letters 89-93!
And
reading his definitions reinforces my
sense of JA having written Miss Bates as a woman who, as a survival strategy,
plays the role of a silly woman
overwhelmed by fancy, but whose seemingly random chaotic stream of fancies are
actually sophisticated poetic expressions generated by a fertile _imagination_.
So,
bravo to my reticent friend, for a brilliant catch!
In
my next post, I will respond to Linda's interesting and insightful categorizing
of different shades of meaning of
"fancy".
Cheers,
ARNIE
@JaneAustenCode
on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment