To See or Not to See Francis Jeffrey on William Wordsworth Essay Example

To See or Not to See: Francis Jeffrey on William Wordsworth Essay To see or not to see Francis Jeffrey on William Wordsworth 2009. 12. 14. Literary criticism has ever been a touchy subject. Throughout cultural history we have seen critics of various shapes and sizes commenting on all works of art in vastly different ways, from the condescending to the rave, the profound to the sarcastic – and all of them were right, in one sense. For a critic is a â€Å"voice of the masses†, a representative of readers everywhere, thus whatever opinion a critic has is justified by him having actually seen, read, interpreted and/or digested the given masterpiece, and being moved by it to such an extent as to express this in a verbal form. A true critic, however, is slightly more than that – he possesses a stable sense of cultural value, and the ability to pinpoint the exact place of any artificial creation in the golden canon of immortality, not to mention a sense of humour and a devout humility towards art in general. We will write a custom essay sample on To See or Not to See: Francis Jeffrey on William Wordsworth specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on To See or Not to See: Francis Jeffrey on William Wordsworth specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on To See or Not to See: Francis Jeffrey on William Wordsworth specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Francis Jeffrey (1773-1850) was all these things and more – though admittedly he didn’t bear all the afore-mentioned qualities in equal measure. Even so, owing to his editorship and contributions at the Edinburgh Review, he was undoubtedly one of the most well-known critics of his age (and maybe since then), his utmost concern being to mould public taste in an intelligent and elegant way. And this is how he actually managed to influence the literature he was so keen on dissecting, and whose influence made him write in the first place; so presenting us with the old symbol of a snake biting its tail, one melting into the other, each affecting and being affected by its partner. Jeffrey’s judgements – both well-deserved and slightly less so – were something to be reckoned with, and several notable literary personages of the time can thank him for the growing (or diminishing) number of their readers, serving as an excellent example of what a critic might accomplish. Three personages are often mentioned in connection with Jeffrey, three men whose works became even more interconnected with his than the rest of the prestigious number he commented on. Jeffrey and Carlyle had an ambiguous relationship, with Jeffrey recognizing the genius of Carlyle early in his career, and going out of his way to present him with opportunities to flourish, while the different personalities of the two men – Jeffrey’s benign curiosity about the younger man’s affairs, and Carlyle’s independence – presented themselves in conflicts of varying intensity. Jeffrey and Dickens, on the other hand, had no major opposition of will, although this may be due to the fact that Jeffrey was an older and slightly kinder critic by the time they met. But neither of these relationships can compare, or even contrast, with the one Jeffrey had with William Wordsworth (1770-1850). Jeffrey had, from the start, a very strong opinion about Wordsworth – indeed, there are scarcely any criticisms left us which present such an unmasked feeling of dissatisfaction with a poet as his reviews about Wordsworth’s poems. The significance of these reviews is two-fold: on the one hand, they paint a vibrant picture of what the philosophy and idealism of the Lake Poets, and the morality of the Scottish Whig cultural elite, actually was like; on the other hand, Jeffrey’s unique style, made up of sarcasm, wit, elegance, and a slightly biased opinion, offer an insight to his mind, personal experience and ethics. In other words, Jeffrey’s reviews present themselves as a luxurious â€Å"feast for the soul and mind†, both contextually and stylistically speaking. In the following, we are going to look at two reviews, one from 1807, the other from 1822 – one of the first and last reviews concerned with Wordsworth and the Poets of the Lakes. Wordsworth’s Poems, published in 1807, move Jeffrey to express his disappointment with and worries over the new poetic style used therein in no uncertain form (though still much more mildly than in later years! ). He begins by mentioning the Lake Poets and the popularity of the Lyrical Ballads – and gently implies that success, however well-deserved, does not erase the many faults of the volume (i. . vulgarity, silliness). He goes on to state that these attributes are not in themselves worth any value, and therefore shouldn’t be seen as (aesthetic) virtues in any case. After this introduction, he moves on to the poems in question, and concludes that Wordsworth’s volume has settled the argument concerning literary merit in a definite way – so definite, in fact, that Jeffrey washes his hands, so to speak, and places the matter before the public (as if it weren’t already there), to decide for themselves whether Wordsworth’s Poems are worth something or not. Following this verdict, Jeffrey starts illustrating his opinion by moralizing about poetry in general, defining it as something that gives the reader â€Å"pleasure†, which can be divided into three parts: „that which we receive from the excitement of Passion or emotion — that which is derived from the play of Imagination, or the easy exercise of Reason — and that which depends on the character and qualities the Diction. † Diction, it seems, deserved some further introduction, for apparently this is what Jeffrey found most lacking in Poems. It becomes clear that in the critic’s opinion, true diction is elegant, dignified, appropriate – today we would probably add, conventional. The review laments the disuse of diction in the Lakeside fraternity, the disregard of classical sources and preference for the ordinary, the mundane. This latter tendency is also pointed out in relation to Poems’ topics, where Jeffrey emphasizes that the everyday subjects mentioned cannot actually be admitted as touching or sublime with a straight face. In his conclusion, Jeffrey admits that Wordsworth’s talents do shine through most of his works, making it doubly disappointing that they have to make do with such â€Å"trash†, and finishes by expressing a hope for the abortion of such â€Å"violation of the established laws of poetry†. Looking at the review from a stylistic point of view, Jeffrey is not as outspoken as he will be on following occasions, choosing instead to provide a poetical background philosophy to justify his negative impressions. Towards the end, however, he narrows his range of vision more and more from the general to the particular; and we can see the moraliser turn gradually into the critic, who doesn’t veil or justify his opinions thoroughly, but chooses rather to present them forcibly, with strong words and expressions (e. g. trash, folly, etc. ). Structurally speaking, the review is well-built, and conveys a false impression of impartiality with its units of refutation, exploration and conclusion, while in fact the personal opinion of the critic can clearly be felt in every instance of his well-composed sentences. But this, of course, was Jeffrey’s forte – to insinuate his own feelings even when seeming completely neutral. This tendency can well be observed also in the review of Wordsworth’s Memorials of a Tour, published in 1822. Note that fifteen years have passed, a significant period of time in contemporary literature – the new-fangled notions to which Jeffrey had objected previously had grown roots, even flourished somewhat; however, the opposition never altered its opinion: probably the most famous review of Jeffrey on Wordsworth, the one concerning The Excursion (published in 1814), opening with the line â€Å"This will never do! , is the best example of them still maintaining differences. During these years, Jeffrey used his wit and sarcasm to great effect, succeeding in shaking the reputations of Wordsworth and others considerably, albeit giving them considerable publicity at the same time. This review, however, is slightly different – although stil l wittily disapproving, it again includes the reader significantly, much like the one previously mentioned. Jeffrey – always a man of spectacular openers – starts off with the sentence: â€Å"The Lake School of Poetry, we think, is now pretty nearly extinct. . No gentlemanly reserve in his tone now – he follows up by separating Wordsworth from the fraternity, disclosing that now even they won’t admit him as belonging to them (though how someone could â€Å"belong† to a dead fraternity stays undecided), owing to his backward style, which even the inserted phrases of Milton or the Holy Writ can’t help (Jeffrey’s appreciation of these venerable sources clearly shines through his words on the subject). The second paragraph explains that while most of the compositions begin promisingly, the misguided author mostly succeeds in ruining them by saying nothing, or – even worse – by saying something totally ordinary in an â€Å"unintelligible way†, which, it seems, is one of the major sins against poetry itself. It soon becomes clear that the main concern of Jeffrey is that the sonnets of which the Memorial is composed are puzzling, and hard to understand; that Wordsworth insists on choosing the most unworthy objects to evoke startling fantasies or visions; and most of all, that the politics of the author leave much to be required. For a large part of the review is devoted to a sarcastic account of how Wordsworth depicted Napoleon, and how his sources for political and historical facts mainly consist of newspapers (the Morning Post is specifically mentioned). Following this, even the author’s reference to Milton becomes an object for derision (â€Å"Of a truth, it is a dangerous experiment in Mr. Wordsworth to recall his reader’s notice to Milton when he writes sonnets. †). Loftiness and high emotion are interpreted as pretension and impotence; however, Jeffrey again points out that even this volume has its merits, and that gems of beauty can indeed be found â€Å"†¦when [the author] is pleased to be plain and rational†. This review differs slightly from the previous one in style – Jeffrey does not give reasons for his verdicts any more, but declares his opinion in a straight, and sometimes still respectful manner. He constantly refers to contemporary matters, from affairs of the life of Wordsworth himself (Stamp-office) to the knowledge of the reader about important dates. We can see that this is a somewhat different approach than before – in 1807, he called on the reader to act as a dignified judge of literary value; now, he speaks out to him as a friend, someone with knowledge and experience similar to his own. The linguistic style of the review emphasizes this familiarity by often choosing sarcasm instead of elegance, or maybe not even that, just â€Å"plain† speech, only using flowing phrases when the context requires it. This tendency – although significant – is unsurprising, given that Jeffrey and his readership had, by now, more than fifteen years to grow familiar in. The single largest factor which ties both reviews together is, of course, the undervaluation of Wordsworth as a poet. One might well ask that how could a critic, any critic, of such taste and pedigree not recognize the genius of Wordsworth, and still be remembered by following generations as a critic of any value. There could be many answers to this question: one could simply shrug it off by saying contemporary critics very rarely discover the true talents of their times; or that Jeffrey’s enjoyable style is worthy of remembrance anywhere, notwithstanding his misjudged opinions. We could even say that badmouthing Wordsworth was Jeffrey’s one most significant achievement, which in itself constitutes a right to be remembered. The truth, however, lies somewhere deeper than that. For the reason to remember Jeffrey is Wordsworth himself – it is generally accepted that the critic’s judgements affected not only the criticized works’ afterlives, but the poet’s work as well. Wordsworth didn’t heed Jeffrey’s intimations, but they affected him slightly; he responded to the attacks, and defended himself as well as he could, on all grounds Jeffrey has challenged him: morality, philosophy, aesthetics and ethics, stating that contemporary reception cannot serve as a guideline for the future, but should be moulded and refined enough to accept these compositions according to their value. And so the symbiosis continued, with the works of Jeffrey and Wordsworth – although different in genre – growing ever more interconnected. And this is the most important reason why we have to remember Jeffrey: his impact on the Lake Poet’s work will last for ever, even when sarcasm seems outdated, classical references tedious, and elaborate language unnecessary. We can conclude that Jeffrey, even if he hadn’t managed to recognize Wordsworth, stated his opinion in a way worthy of his foe – noone needs to be ashamed of him; for although his sense of humour was limited, his humility likewise, and his ability to pinpoint immortal values a bit shoddy, he was – and remains – a force to be reckoned with. An eternal reminder that, whatever our opinions are, they will always have value and impact towards the one they are aimed at. To See or Not to See Francis Jeffrey on William Wordsworth Essay Example To See or Not to See: Francis Jeffrey on William Wordsworth Essay To see or not to see Francis Jeffrey on William Wordsworth 2009. 12. 14. Literary criticism has ever been a touchy subject. Throughout cultural history we have seen critics of various shapes and sizes commenting on all works of art in vastly different ways, from the condescending to the rave, the profound to the sarcastic – and all of them were right, in one sense. For a critic is a â€Å"voice of the masses†, a representative of readers everywhere, thus whatever opinion a critic has is justified by him having actually seen, read, interpreted and/or digested the given masterpiece, and being moved by it to such an extent as to express this in a verbal form. A true critic, however, is slightly more than that – he possesses a stable sense of cultural value, and the ability to pinpoint the exact place of any artificial creation in the golden canon of immortality, not to mention a sense of humour and a devout humility towards art in general. We will write a custom essay sample on To See or Not to See: Francis Jeffrey on William Wordsworth specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on To See or Not to See: Francis Jeffrey on William Wordsworth specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on To See or Not to See: Francis Jeffrey on William Wordsworth specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Francis Jeffrey (1773-1850) was all these things and more – though admittedly he didn’t bear all the afore-mentioned qualities in equal measure. Even so, owing to his editorship and contributions at the Edinburgh Review, he was undoubtedly one of the most well-known critics of his age (and maybe since then), his utmost concern being to mould public taste in an intelligent and elegant way. And this is how he actually managed to influence the literature he was so keen on dissecting, and whose influence made him write in the first place; so presenting us with the old symbol of a snake biting its tail, one melting into the other, each affecting and being affected by its partner. Jeffrey’s judgements – both well-deserved and slightly less so – were something to be reckoned with, and several notable literary personages of the time can thank him for the growing (or diminishing) number of their readers, serving as an excellent example of what a critic might accomplish. Three personages are often mentioned in connection with Jeffrey, three men whose works became even more interconnected with his than the rest of the prestigious number he commented on. Jeffrey and Carlyle had an ambiguous relationship, with Jeffrey recognizing the genius of Carlyle early in his career, and going out of his way to present him with opportunities to flourish, while the different personalities of the two men – Jeffrey’s benign curiosity about the younger man’s affairs, and Carlyle’s independence – presented themselves in conflicts of varying intensity. Jeffrey and Dickens, on the other hand, had no major opposition of will, although this may be due to the fact that Jeffrey was an older and slightly kinder critic by the time they met. But neither of these relationships can compare, or even contrast, with the one Jeffrey had with William Wordsworth (1770-1850). Jeffrey had, from the start, a very strong opinion about Wordsworth – indeed, there are scarcely any criticisms left us which present such an unmasked feeling of dissatisfaction with a poet as his reviews about Wordsworth’s poems. The significance of these reviews is two-fold: on the one hand, they paint a vibrant picture of what the philosophy and idealism of the Lake Poets, and the morality of the Scottish Whig cultural elite, actually was like; on the other hand, Jeffrey’s unique style, made up of sarcasm, wit, elegance, and a slightly biased opinion, offer an insight to his mind, personal experience and ethics. In other words, Jeffrey’s reviews present themselves as a luxurious â€Å"feast for the soul and mind†, both contextually and stylistically speaking. In the following, we are going to look at two reviews, one from 1807, the other from 1822 – one of the first and last reviews concerned with Wordsworth and the Poets of the Lakes. Wordsworth’s Poems, published in 1807, move Jeffrey to express his disappointment with and worries over the new poetic style used therein in no uncertain form (though still much more mildly than in later years! ). He begins by mentioning the Lake Poets and the popularity of the Lyrical Ballads – and gently implies that success, however well-deserved, does not erase the many faults of the volume (i. . vulgarity, silliness). He goes on to state that these attributes are not in themselves worth any value, and therefore shouldn’t be seen as (aesthetic) virtues in any case. After this introduction, he moves on to the poems in question, and concludes that Wordsworth’s volume has settled the argument concerning literary merit in a definite way – so definite, in fact, that Jeffrey washes his hands, so to speak, and places the matter before the public (as if it weren’t already there), to decide for themselves whether Wordsworth’s Poems are worth something or not. Following this verdict, Jeffrey starts illustrating his opinion by moralizing about poetry in general, defining it as something that gives the reader â€Å"pleasure†, which can be divided into three parts: „that which we receive from the excitement of Passion or emotion — that which is derived from the play of Imagination, or the easy exercise of Reason — and that which depends on the character and qualities the Diction. † Diction, it seems, deserved some further introduction, for apparently this is what Jeffrey found most lacking in Poems. It becomes clear that in the critic’s opinion, true diction is elegant, dignified, appropriate – today we would probably add, conventional. The review laments the disuse of diction in the Lakeside fraternity, the disregard of classical sources and preference for the ordinary, the mundane. This latter tendency is also pointed out in relation to Poems’ topics, where Jeffrey emphasizes that the everyday subjects mentioned cannot actually be admitted as touching or sublime with a straight face. In his conclusion, Jeffrey admits that Wordsworth’s talents do shine through most of his works, making it doubly disappointing that they have to make do with such â€Å"trash†, and finishes by expressing a hope for the abortion of such â€Å"violation of the established laws of poetry†. Looking at the review from a stylistic point of view, Jeffrey is not as outspoken as he will be on following occasions, choosing instead to provide a poetical background philosophy to justify his negative impressions. Towards the end, however, he narrows his range of vision more and more from the general to the particular; and we can see the moraliser turn gradually into the critic, who doesn’t veil or justify his opinions thoroughly, but chooses rather to present them forcibly, with strong words and expressions (e. g. trash, folly, etc. ). Structurally speaking, the review is well-built, and conveys a false impression of impartiality with its units of refutation, exploration and conclusion, while in fact the personal opinion of the critic can clearly be felt in every instance of his well-composed sentences. But this, of course, was Jeffrey’s forte – to insinuate his own feelings even when seeming completely neutral. This tendency can well be observed also in the review of Wordsworth’s Memorials of a Tour, published in 1822. Note that fifteen years have passed, a significant period of time in contemporary literature – the new-fangled notions to which Jeffrey had objected previously had grown roots, even flourished somewhat; however, the opposition never altered its opinion: probably the most famous review of Jeffrey on Wordsworth, the one concerning The Excursion (published in 1814), opening with the line â€Å"This will never do! , is the best example of them still maintaining differences. During these years, Jeffrey used his wit and sarcasm to great effect, succeeding in shaking the reputations of Wordsworth and others considerably, albeit giving them considerable publicity at the same time. This review, however, is slightly different – although stil l wittily disapproving, it again includes the reader significantly, much like the one previously mentioned. Jeffrey – always a man of spectacular openers – starts off with the sentence: â€Å"The Lake School of Poetry, we think, is now pretty nearly extinct. . No gentlemanly reserve in his tone now – he follows up by separating Wordsworth from the fraternity, disclosing that now even they won’t admit him as belonging to them (though how someone could â€Å"belong† to a dead fraternity stays undecided), owing to his backward style, which even the inserted phrases of Milton or the Holy Writ can’t help (Jeffrey’s appreciation of these venerable sources clearly shines through his words on the subject). The second paragraph explains that while most of the compositions begin promisingly, the misguided author mostly succeeds in ruining them by saying nothing, or – even worse – by saying something totally ordinary in an â€Å"unintelligible way†, which, it seems, is one of the major sins against poetry itself. It soon becomes clear that the main concern of Jeffrey is that the sonnets of which the Memorial is composed are puzzling, and hard to understand; that Wordsworth insists on choosing the most unworthy objects to evoke startling fantasies or visions; and most of all, that the politics of the author leave much to be required. For a large part of the review is devoted to a sarcastic account of how Wordsworth depicted Napoleon, and how his sources for political and historical facts mainly consist of newspapers (the Morning Post is specifically mentioned). Following this, even the author’s reference to Milton becomes an object for derision (â€Å"Of a truth, it is a dangerous experiment in Mr. Wordsworth to recall his reader’s notice to Milton when he writes sonnets. †). Loftiness and high emotion are interpreted as pretension and impotence; however, Jeffrey again points out that even this volume has its merits, and that gems of beauty can indeed be found â€Å"†¦when [the author] is pleased to be plain and rational†. This review differs slightly from the previous one in style – Jeffrey does not give reasons for his verdicts any more, but declares his opinion in a straight, and sometimes still respectful manner. He constantly refers to contemporary matters, from affairs of the life of Wordsworth himself (Stamp-office) to the knowledge of the reader about important dates. We can see that this is a somewhat different approach than before – in 1807, he called on the reader to act as a dignified judge of literary value; now, he speaks out to him as a friend, someone with knowledge and experience similar to his own. The linguistic style of the review emphasizes this familiarity by often choosing sarcasm instead of elegance, or maybe not even that, just â€Å"plain† speech, only using flowing phrases when the context requires it. This tendency – although significant – is unsurprising, given that Jeffrey and his readership had, by now, more than fifteen years to grow familiar in. The single largest factor which ties both reviews together is, of course, the undervaluation of Wordsworth as a poet. One might well ask that how could a critic, any critic, of such taste and pedigree not recognize the genius of Wordsworth, and still be remembered by following generations as a critic of any value. There could be many answers to this question: one could simply shrug it off by saying contemporary critics very rarely discover the true talents of their times; or that Jeffrey’s enjoyable style is worthy of remembrance anywhere, notwithstanding his misjudged opinions. We could even say that badmouthing Wordsworth was Jeffrey’s one most significant achievement, which in itself constitutes a right to be remembered. The truth, however, lies somewhere deeper than that. For the reason to remember Jeffrey is Wordsworth himself – it is generally accepted that the critic’s judgements affected not only the criticized works’ afterlives, but the poet’s work as well. Wordsworth didn’t heed Jeffrey’s intimations, but they affected him slightly; he responded to the attacks, and defended himself as well as he could, on all grounds Jeffrey has challenged him: morality, philosophy, aesthetics and ethics, stating that contemporary reception cannot serve as a guideline for the future, but should be moulded and refined enough to accept these compositions according to their value. And so the symbiosis continued, with the works of Jeffrey and Wordsworth – although different in genre – growing ever more interconnected. And this is the most important reason why we have to remember Jeffrey: his impact on the Lake Poet’s work will last for ever, even when sarcasm seems outdated, classical references tedious, and elaborate language unnecessary. We can conclude that Jeffrey, even if he hadn’t managed to recognize Wordsworth, stated his opinion in a way worthy of his foe – noone needs to be ashamed of him; for although his sense of humour was limited, his humility likewise, and his ability to pinpoint immortal values a bit shoddy, he was – and remains – a force to be reckoned with. An eternal reminder that, whatever our opinions are, they will always have value and impact towards the one they are aimed at.