English poetry -- 19th century -- History and criticism; Great Britain -- History -- Victoria, 1837-1901
With Wordsworth the difference persists, but it has shifted its
centre. His moral sincerity is no more in doubt than Milton’s, and,
indeed, his artistic control of moral judgment may be said to approach
Shakespeare’s more nearly than does Milton’s. Between Shakespeare
and Wordsworth, however, there still remains a great difference.
Wordsworth, although subject to abstract moral convictions much more
clearly than Shakespeare, is yet as unwilling as the great dramatist to
impose them on his creations after the event, but the difference lies
in the fact that with Wordsworth the whole substance of his creation is
far more limited in range than Shakespeare’s, and precisely because it
is from the first conditioned largely by the moral conviction. That is
to say that, without any deliberate manipulating of his art, Wordsworth
by instinct brought into his poetry only the kind of creations that
were not by their actual conduct, but in their essential character, in
keeping with his own moral nature. The creative impulse led Shakespeare
no one could tell from hour to hour in what direction, and it was
never hampered in its movement by the poet’s own moral point of view.
Milton’s impulse, also, could range far, but the issue, whatever it
might be, had to be tested by the same laws in the end. With Pope,
the administration of the laws had become a more or less arbitrary
ceremony, very self-important as such ceremonies are, and too often
divorced from the figures of any creative impulse at all. But with
Wordsworth the impulse never worked happily outside the influence of
the moral nature by which its creations were ultimately to be tried.
And so, leaving Pope out of the reckoning, since in these high matters,
memorable poet as he was, he was of altogether smaller stature, we may
say that in the fitness of the exercise of moral judgment Wordsworth
stands with Shakespeare, but that, his creation being governed largely
by a moral character already defined, instead of developing its own
moral influences as it grows, it is infinitely less various and complex
than Shakespeare’s, while Milton approaches Shakespeare more nearly in
range, but is less impressive than either in his adjustment of poetic
to moral values.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account