Tubbs 1

Whitney L. Tubbs

Dr. Robbins

English 211

November 6, 2023

Inscape as a Hopkinsean Ontological Argument

Literature and philosophy have a long, rich history of working in tandem to convey ideas

that are often larger than the human mind can easily comprehend. For all of humanity’s

advancements, there still exist many metaphysical questions that lack answers. This failing is not

for lack of interest or effort, as many philosophers and theologians have put forth theories

supported by sound reasoning. One of the biggest hurdles to overcome in answering abstract

questions is language, as all rational beings must understand and agree on how every part of the

question is defined. The fields of philosophy, theology, and literature working in cohesion stand

a chance of making this seemingly impossible task possible. Through a philosophical lens, the

poems of Gerard Manly Hopkins, taken alongside his idea of instress, show there is an

ontological argument for the necessity of God by positing that the singularity afforded by

inscapes to all things does not divide them but unites all in a shared state of being that can only

come from an unmoved primary mover.

The first record of Hopkins referring to inscape comes from notes he had made remarking

on the presocratic Greek philosopher Parmenides during his study days. Hopkins says of

Parmenides’ definitions, “that being is and not being is not – which perhaps one can say, a little

over-defining his meaning, he means that all things are upheld by instress and are meaningless
 Tubbs 2

without it” (Higgins 311). Not a fully developed idea, this musing hints at what the expression

will eventually mean. Hopkins uses it, as well as its cohort’ instress,’ in different ways over

many years. Loosely defined, inscape is an intrinsic quality held by all beings that makes them

qualitatively unique and unites them in this shared state of being. The Platonian theory of Forms

insists that concepts and instances do not exist authentically inside the realm of human

understanding, and what is perceived by man is merely a part, lesser in degree, of the Form.

Parmenides’ complicated theories about the nature of being and its counterpart non-being and

Plato’s Forms leave Hopkins questioning how, or if, the essence of a thing can ever be fully

understood. This epistemological problem gives rise to Hopkins’ notion of instress: the coming

to know of one entity of another that is outside of oneself profoundly. Parmenides did not

recognize change as being a natural process that existed in the world. It is because nothing can

come from nothing that he believed change to be a trick of the senses, as anything that exists

must have come from something and not nothing. So, to know anything, one must avoid being

fooled by the phenomenal world. A method not reliant upon the sensory organs for knowledge,

instress avoids this pitfall, as it is an unconscious guiding of one’s will to identify what God-

given quality sets a thing apart from everything else.

One of Hopkins’ most discussed works, often cited as highly representative of inscape, is

“The Windhover.” In it, the speaker observes a falcon in its element, “gliding” and “striding” (4-

6) against the wind, in total control of its ascent and momentum. Like the concept referred to in

psychology as flow state, the bird’s mastery of flight despite strong winds is effortless.

Overwhelmed by the realization that he is witnessing the fulfillment of God’s purpose, the

speaker is awe-struck. A piece of the speaker that has been “in hiding” (7) is restored through
 Tubbs 3

this observation and its meaning. In the first half of the sestet that follows the opening octet,

there is a call to action from the speaker to the aspects he views as the falcon’s defining qualities.

“Buckle!” in line 10 is an emphatic request that the “brute beauty” (9) pull together these parts of

its being into the whole of itself, culminating in accomplishing God’s ideal. The poem closes

with the speaker, less excitedly, coming to see the falcon as a part of something larger than itself.

Even nonliving things, like the “plod” (12) made by a plow in a field, are worthy of praise when

they take part in actualizing the design of God.

One’s soul, steeped in despair too long, can start to find a “Carrion Comfort” in misery.

A state of being that, if unchecked, leads to blaming God for the trials one endures as a natural

consequence of living. The story of Job is a prime example. The epiphany that ends the poem,

“(my God!) my God)” (17-18), can be viewed as the result of having inscaped his soul (in a kind

of self-reflecting) and seen the self-defeating nature of fighting with God, as he is a part of God

like all things.

For Hopkins, all objects existing in the world contain within them the potential of

actualization. The state of becoming is a shared nature that suggests an ordered universe with all

things having within them an end or telos. The structuring of limitless chaos strongly signals the

presence of a primary mover, an “overwhelming, contagious influence,” namely God (Sansom

35). Taken from the context of Hopkins’ writings about inscape, it is the quality that

differentiates one from all others, especially those similar in Form and purpose. Aristotle’s

theory of four causes would place an object’s inscape within the final cause. All four causes must

be present for being to actualize, and they work in varying degrees throughout the stages of its

existence. The labyrinthian nature of the complex systems that work together in some organisms
 Tubbs 4

is reminiscent of the complicated mechanisms inside a well-crafted Swiss clock. Suppose one

were to come upon such a watch on the beach of a remote planet in another solar system and had

never seen or heard of clocks. Would they think it was possibly a random grouping of atoms that

came into existence with all the delicate moving parts just an accident? It seems highly

improbable. The nature of intelligent design, for Hopkins and many others, is evidence of God’s

master plan and, as such, should be celebrated.

“Pied Beauty” is a celebration and an expression of gratitude towards God for the

oxymoronic perfection of flaws. God’s power can be seen in the beauty of variety because it

supports the idea that there are no accidents. God is the cause and craftsman of all things. Even

that which man constructs, the “fold, fallow, and plough” (5), is ultimately a product of God, as

he gave the mind and muscle that went into the assembly of machines. A darker side of

Aristotle’s final cause, as it applies to the notion of inscape, is explored in one of Hopkins’ self-

proclaimed ‘terrible’ sonnets. The speaker’s bitter explanation of life’s harsh reality to a young

girl still enjoying the naïve “fresh thoughts” (4) of youth offers a bleaker viewpoint to consider

the purpose of being. It can be sure of only one end: to come into being and begin dying.

Hopkins’ “Spring and Fall” closes with the next to last line, referring to death as “the blight man

was born for” (14).

The lighthearted optimism exhibited in most of Hopkins’ poems by the very principle of

being human was not a sustainable state of being. Humans share a common burden. Our intellect

allows the capacity for rational thought that inevitably gives way to questions involving the

nature of being, the cause of the universe, and humans’ place within it. Should humanity suffer

an extinction event, removing it from existence for 10,000 years, once settled and reoriented, the
 Tubbs 5

same metaphysical questions would surface. A never-ending circle of creation and destruction,

with no explanation or apologies. Tragically, the problem at the heart of questions about the

nature of being exists within those posing it. Human subjectivity will not allow an all-

encompassing, universal truth to exist. Hopkins instress takes an alternate route in understanding

the nature, or inscape, of being by looking into what sets it apart and gives it a quintessential

‘this’ness that makes it what it is. The poet’s love of words and Form contributes to his inscape,

but ironically, he never consistently articulates the exact meanings of ‘inscape’ and ‘instress.’ It

bears noting that it shares some similarities with the Tao in this respect; once named, it is no

longer an accurate description or representation of itself. Words rob it of its profundity. This

opposes Hopkins’ feeling that “words are among the things the poet sees or hears, components of

what the poet has made with sounds or marks” (Llewelyn 16). Hopkins’ instress has within itself

a means of understanding the nature of being but is by design not capable of providing answers

in any empirical sense.

 Tubbs 6

Works Cited

Higgins, Lesley. “The Collected Works of Gerard Manley Hopkins: Volume IV: Oxford Essays

and Notes.” 1863-1868. OUP Oxford, 2006. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=191295&site=eds-

live&scope=site.

Llewelyn, John. “Gerard Manley Hopkins and the Spell of John Duns Scotus.” Edinburgh

University Press, 2015. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1140068&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Sansom, Dennis L. “‘What You Look Hard at Seems to Look Hard at You’: Metaphysics and the

Poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins.” Journal of Aesthetic Education, vol. 55, no. 3, Oct.

2021, pp. 33–58. EBSCOhost,

https://doi-org.latech.idm.oclc.org/10.5406/jaesteduc.55.3.0033.