Ontological Violence: "Ambiguous Undulations" between "Sunday Morning" and Sunny Day's Morning

In his early poems, Wallace Stevens shows us different gestures, compared with his later poems, when he acquires reality by faculty of imagination. The former is made of ontological violence while the latter is revealed by bareness of less sensuality. However, they are the identical gestures, though from different angles, to accomplish things as they are rather than the ideas of things. In "Sunday Morning," ontological violence occurs in such epistemological couples as thought and thing, mind and world, and imagination and reality. Especially, in order to recuperate his poetic reality, Stevens undermines the traditional hierarchy between heavenly divinity and earthly divinity. In the poem, Christianity faces a critical challenge and then it is disempowered by the earthly divinity. Additionally, by disadvantaging religion, he wants to raise his poetic issue of the faculty of imagination to acquire reality. Stevens' concept of imagination is less subjective and more transcendental than Kantian one. After the ontological violence, Christian divinity and mythic gods leave ontological boundary for earthly divinity in an ambiguous way. In other words, between "Sunday" and "sunny day," the ontological conflicts haunt us throughout the poem as if the violence would happen between imagination and reality. For Stevens, both Christian divinity and mythic gods are mere obstacles to real divinity; both play a mere role of imagination before reality is revealed. Whatever reality is, imagination is always ready to draw an ontological line of reality in an ambiguous way, regardless of how long it lasts. In general, most ontological violence requires such physical remnants of conflicts as borderline, deaths, and pains which still prevail in the poem. Those ontological remnants remain to be found on earth. The sky is an abstract borderline between heaven and earth because in a sense, it belongs to both earthly landscape and heavenly sphere. Without any ontological borderline or threshold, there is no recognition of the divinity because the vitality of divinity is inflamed in continuous transgression of the other. After the final ontological conflict between heaven and earth, there remains only ambiguous borderline near the earth beside the friendlier sky.