<SPAN name="IV"></SPAN>
<h2>IV.</h2>
<h2>WORDSWORTH</h2>
<h3><b><SPAN name="1._His_Personality_and_Genius"></SPAN>1. His Personality and Genius</b></h3>
<br/>
<p>Dorothy Wordsworth—whom Professor Harper has praised not beyond
reason
as "the most delightful, the most fascinating woman who has enriched
literary history"—once confessed in a letter about her brother William
that "his person is not in his favour," and that he was "certainly
rather plain." He is the most difficult of all the great poets whom one
reverences to portray as an attractive person. "'Horse-face,' I have
heard satirists say," Carlyle wrote of him, recalling a comparison of
Hazlitt's; and the horse-face seems to be symbolic of something that we
find not only in his personal appearance, but in his personality and
his
work.</p>
<p>His faults do not soften us, as the faults of so many favourite
writers
do. They were the faults, not of passion, but of a superior person, who
was something of a Sir Willoughby Patterne in his pompous
self-satisfaction. "He says," records Lamb in one of his letters, "he
does not see much difficulty in writing like Shakespeare, if he had a
mind to try it." Lamb adds: "It is clear that nothing is wanting but
the
mind."</p>
<p>Leigh Hunt, after receiving a visit from Wordsworth in 1815,
remarked
that "he was as sceptical on the merit of all kinds of poetry but one
as
Richardson was on those of the novels of Fielding." Keats, who had
earlier spoken of the reverence in which he held Wordsworth, wrote to
his brother in 1818: "I am sorry that Wordsworth has left a bad
impression wherever he visited in town by his egotism, vanity, and
bigotry." There was something frigidly unsympathetic in his judgment of
others, which was as unattractive as his complacency in regard to his
own work. When Trelawny, seeing him at Lausanne and, learning who he
was, went up to him as he was about to step into his carriage and asked
him what he thought of Shelley as a poet, he replied: "Nothing." Again,
Wordsworth spoke with solemn reprobation of certain of Lamb's
friendships, after Lamb was dead, as "the indulgences of social humours
and fancies which were often injurious to himself and causes of severe
regrets to his friends, without really benefiting the object of his
misapplied kindness."</p>
<p>Nor was this attitude of Johnny Head-in-Air the mark only of his
later
years. It appeared in the days when he and Coleridge collaborated in
bringing out <i>Lyrical Ballads.</i> There is something sublimely
egotistical
in the way in which he shook his head over <i>The Ancient Mariner</i>
as a
drag upon that miraculous volume. In the course of a letter to his
publisher, he wrote:—</p>
<div class="blkquot">
<p>From what I can gather it seems that <i>The Ancyent Marinere</i>
has, on the whole, been an injury to the volume; I mean that the old
words and the strangeness of it have deterred readers from going on. If
the volume should come to a second edition, I would put in its place
some little things which would be more likely to suit the common taste.</p>
</div>
<p>It is when one reads sentences like these that one begins to take a
mischievous delight in the later onslaught of a Scottish reviewer who,
indignant that Wordsworth should dare to pretend to be able to
appreciate Burns, denounced him as "a retired, pensive, egotistical,
<i>collector of stamps</i>," and as—</p>
<div class="blkquot">
<p>a melancholy, sighing, half-parson sort of gentleman, who lives in a
small circle of old maids and sonneteers, and drinks tea now and then
with the solemn Laureate.</p>
</div>
<p>One feels at times that no ridicule or abuse of this stiff-necked
old
fraud could be excessive; for, if he were not Wordsworth, as what but a
fraud could we picture him in his later years, as he protests against
Catholic Emancipation, the extension of the franchise, the freedom of
the Press, and popular education? "Can it, in a <i>general</i> view,"
he
asks, "be good that an infant should learn much which its <i>parents
do
not know?</i> Will not a child arrogate a superiority unfavourable to
love
and obedience?" He shuddered again at the likelihood that Mechanics'
Institutes would "make discontented spirits and insubordinate and
presumptuous workmen." He opposed the admission of Dissenters to
Cambridge University, and he "desired that a medical education should
be
kept beyond the reach of a poor student," on the ground that "the
better
able the parents are to incur expense, the stronger pledge have we of
their children being above meanness and unfeeling and sordid habits."
One might go on quoting instance after instance of this piety of
success, as it might be called. Time and again the words seem to come
from the mouth, not of one of the inspired men of the modern world, but
of some puffed-up elderly gentleman in a novel by Jane Austen. His
letter to a young relation who wished to marry his daughter Dora is a
letter that Jane Austen might have invented:—</p>
<div class="blkquot">
<p>If you have thoughts of marrying, do look out for some lady with a
sufficient fortune for both of you. What I say to you now I would
recommend to every naval officer and clergyman who is without prospect
of professional advancement. Ladies of some fortune are as easily won
as those without, and for the most part as deserving. Check the first
liking to those who have nothing.</p>
</div>
<p>One is tempted to say that Wordsworth, like so many other poets,
died
young, and that a pensioner who inherited his name survived him.</p>
<p>When one has told the worst about Wordsworth, however, one is as far
as
ever from having painted a portrait of him in which anybody could
believe while reading the <i>Ode on Intimations of Immortality—Ode</i>
as
it was simply called when it was first published—or <i>I wandered
lonely
as a cloud</i>, or the sonnet composed on Westminster Bridge. Nor does
the
portrait of a stern, unbending egotist satisfy us when we remember the
life-long devotion that existed between him and Dorothy, and the fact
that Coleridge loved him, and that Lamb and Scott were his friends. He
may have been a niggard of warm-heartedness to the outside world, but
it
is clear from his biography that he possessed the genius of a good
heart
as well as of a great mind.</p>
<p>And he was as conspicuous for the public as for the private virtues.
His
latest biographer has done well to withdraw our eyes from the portrait
of the old man with the stiffened joints and to paint in more glowing
colours than any of his predecessors the early Wordsworth who rejoiced
in the French Revolution, and, apparently as a consequence, initiated a
revolution in English poetry. The later period of the life is not
glossed over; it is given, indeed, in cruel detail, and Professor
Harper's account of it is the most lively and fascinating part of his
admirable book. But it is to the heart of the young revolutionary, who
dreamed of becoming a Girondist leader and of seeing England a
republic,
that he traces all the genius and understanding that we find in the
poems.</p>
<p>"Wordsworth's connection," he writes, "with the English 'Jacobins,'
with
the most extreme element opposed to the war or actively agitating in
favour of making England a republic, was much closer than has been
generally admitted." He points out that Wordsworth's first books of
verse, <i>An Evening Walk</i>, and <i>Descriptive Sketches</i>, were
published by
Joseph Johnson, who also published Dr. Priestley, Horne Tooke, and Mary
Wollstonecraft, and whose shop was frequented by Godwin and Paine.
Professor Harper attempts to strengthen his case by giving brief
sketches of famous "Jacobins," whom Wordsworth may or may not have met,
but his case is strong enough without their help. Wordsworth's
reply—not published at the time, or, indeed, till after his death—to
the Bishop of Llandaff's anti-French-Revolution sermon on <i>The
Wisdom
and Goodness of God in having made both Rich and Poor</i>, was signed
without qualification, "By a Republican." He refused to join in "the
idle Cry of modish lamentation" over the execution of the French King,
and defended the other executions in France as necessary. He condemned
the hereditary principle, whether in the Monarchy or the House of
Lords.
The existence of a nobility, he held, "has a necessary, tendency to
dishonour labour." Had he published this pamphlet when it was written,
in 1793, he might easily have found himself in prison, like many other
sympathizers with the French.</p>
<p>Wordsworth gives us an idea in <i>The Prelude</i>—how one wishes
one had the
original and unamended version of the poem as it was finished in
1805!—of the extreme lengths to which his Republican idealism carried
him. When war was declared against France, he tells us, he prayed for
French victories, and—</p>
<div class="poem">
<div class="stanza"><span>Exulted in the triumph of my soul,<br/>
</span><span>When Englishmen by thousands were o'erthrown,<br/>
</span><span>Left without glory on the field, or driven,<br/>
</span><span>Brave hearts! to shameful flight.<br/>
</span></div>
</div>
<p>Two years later we, find him at Racedown planning satires against
the
King, the Prince of Wales, and various public men, one of the couplets
on the King and the Duke of Norfolk running:—</p>
<div class="poem">
<div class="stanza"><span>Heavens! who sees majesty in George's face?<br/>
</span><span>Or looks at Norfolk, and can dream of grace?<br/>
</span></div>
</div>
<p>But these lines, he declared, were given to him by Southey.</p>
<p>By 1797 a Government spy seems to have been looking after him and
his
friends: he was living at the time at Alfoxden, near Coleridge, who, in
the previous year, had brought out <i>The Watchman</i> to proclaim, as
the
prospectus said, "the state of the political atmosphere, and preserve
Freedom and her Friends from the attacks of Robbers and Assassins."
Wordsworth at a later period did not like the story of the spy, but it
is certain that about the time of the visit he got notice to quit
Alfoxden, obviously for political reasons, from the lady who owned the
estate.</p>
<p>Professor Harper's originality as a biographer, however, does not
lie in
his narration of facts like these, but in the patience with which he
traces the continuance of French sympathies in Wordsworth on into the
opening years of the nineteenth century. He has altered the proportions
in the Wordsworth legend, and made the youth of the poet as long in the
telling as his age. This was all the more necessary because various
biographers have followed too closely the example of the official
<i>Life</i>, the materials for which Wordsworth entrusted to his
nephew, the
Bishop, who naturally regarded Wordsworth, the pillar of Church and
State, as a more eminent and laudable figure than Wordsworth, the young
Revolutionary. Whether the Bishop deliberately hushed up the fact that,
during his early travels in France, Wordsworth fell in love with an
aristocratic French lady who bore him an illegitimate child, I do not
know. Professor Harper, taking a more ruthless view of the duties of a
biographer, now relates the story, though in a rather vague and
mysterious way. One wishes that, having told us so much, he had told us
a little more. Even with all we know about the early life of
Wordsworth,
we are still left guessing at his portrait rather than with a clear
idea
of it. He was a figure in his youth, a character in his old age. The
character we know down to the roots of his hair. But the figure remains
something of a secret.</p>
<p>As a poet, Wordsworth may almost be called the first of the
democrats.
He brought into literature a fresh vision—a vision bathing the world
and its inhabitants in a strange and revolutionary light. He was the
first great poet of equality and fraternity in the sense that he
portrayed the lives of common country, people in their daily
surroundings as faithfully as though they had been kings. It would be
absurd to suggest that there are no anticipations of this democratic
spirit in English literature from Chaucer down to Burns, but
Wordsworth,
more than any other English writer, deserves the credit of having
emancipated the poor man into being a fit subject for noble poetry. How
revolutionary a change this was it is difficult to realize at the
present day, but Jeffrey's protest against it in the <i>Edinburgh
Review</i>
in 1802 enables one to realize to what a degree the poor man was
regarded as an outcast from literature when Wordsworth was young. In
the
course of an attack on <i>Lyrical Ballads</i> Jeffrey wrote:—</p>
<div class="blkquot">
<p>The love, or grief, or indignation, of an enlightened and refined
character is not only expressed in a different language, but is in
itself a different emotion from the love, or grief, or anger, of a
clown, a tradesman, or a market-wench. The things themselves are
radically and obviously distinct.... The poor and vulgar may interest
us, in poetry, by their <i>situation</i>; but never, we apprehend, by
any sentiments that are peculiar to their condition, and still less by
any language that is peculiar to it.</p>
</div>
<p>When one takes sides with Wordsworth against Jeffrey on this matter
it
is not because one regards Wordsworth as a portrait-painter without
faults. His portraits are marred in several cases by the intrusion of
his own personality with its "My good man" and "My little man" air. His
human beings have a way of becoming either lifeless or absurd when they
talk. <i>The Leech-Gatherer</i> and <i>The Idiot Boy</i> are not the
only poems of
Wordsworth that are injured by the insertion of banal dialogue. It is
as
though there were, despite his passion for liberty, equality, and
fraternity, a certain gaucherie in his relations with other human
beings, and he were at his happiest as a solitary. His nature, we may
grant, was of mixed aspects, but, even as early as the 1807 <i>Poems
in
Two Volumes</i> had he not expressed his impatience of human society in
a
sonnet?—</p>
<div class="poem">
<div class="stanza"><span>I am not one who much or oft delight<br/>
</span><span>To season my fireside with personal talk—<br/>
</span><span>Of friends, who live within an easy walk,<br/>
</span><span>Or neighbours, daily, weekly, in <i>my</i> sight:<br/>
</span><span>And, for my chance-acquaintance, ladies bright,<br/>
</span><span>Sons, mothers, maidens withering on the stalk,<br/>
</span><span>These all wear out of me, like forms, with chalk<br/>
</span><span>Painted on rich men's floors, for one feast-night.<br/>
</span></div>
<div class="stanza"><span>Better than such discourse doth silence long,<br/>
</span><span>Long, barren silence, square with my desire;<br/>
</span><span>To sit without emotion, hope, or aim,<br/>
</span><span>In the loved presence of my cottage fire,<br/>
</span><span>And listen to the flapping of the flame,<br/>
</span><span>Or kettle whispering its faint undersong.<br/>
</span></div>
</div>
<p>With Wordsworth, indeed, the light of revelation did not fall upon
human
beings so unbrokenly as upon the face of the earth. He knew the birds
of
the countryside better than the old men, and the flowers far better
than
the children. He noticed how light plays like a spirit upon all living
things. He heard every field and valley echoing with new songs. He saw
the daffodils dancing by the lake, the green linnet dancing among the
hazel leaves, and the young lambs bounding, as he says in an unexpected
line, "as to the tabor's sound," and his heart danced to the same
music,
like the heart of a mystic caught up in holy rapture. Here rather than
in men did he discover the divine speech. His vision of men was always
troubled by his consciousness of duties. Nature came to him as a
liberator into spiritual existence. Not that he ceased to be a
philosopher in his reveries. He was never the half-sensual kind of
mystic. He was never a sensualist in anything, indeed. It is
significant
that he had little sense of smell—the most sensual of the senses. It
is, perhaps, because of this that he is comparatively so roseless a
poet.</p>
<p>But what an ear he had, what a harvesting eye! One cannot read <i>The
Prelude</i> or <i>The Ode</i> or <i>Tintern Abbey</i> without feeling
that seldom can
there have been a poet with a more exquisite capacity for the enjoyment
of joyous things. In his profounder moments he reaches the very sources
of joy as few poets have done. He attracts many readers like a prospect
of cleansing and healing streams.</p>
<p>And he succeeds in being a great poet in two manners. He is a great
poet
in the grand tradition of English literature, and he is a great poet in
his revolutionary simplicity. <i>The Idiot Boy</i>, for all its
banalities,
is as immortal as <i>The Ode</i>, and <i>The Solitary Reaper</i> will
live side by
side with the great sonnets while the love of literature endures. While
we read these poems we tell ourselves that it is almost irrelevant to
mourn the fact that the man who wrote them gave up his faith in
humanity
for faith in Church and State. His genius survives in literature: it
was
only his courage as a politician that perished. At the same time, he
wished to impress himself upon the world as a politician even more
perhaps than as a poet. And, indeed, if he had died at the age at which
Byron died, his record in politics would have been as noble as his
record in poetry. Happily or unhappily, however, he lived on, a worse
politician and a worse poet. His record as both has never before been
set forth with the same comprehensiveness as in Professor Harper's
important and, after one has ploughed through some heavy pages,
fascinating volumes.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />