4. The Romantic Imagination

4.
The Romantic Imagination

William Wordsworth, Preface to Lyrical Ballads (1800)

The political and social unrest of the first half of the nineteenth century found cultural expression in the artistic movement known as romanticism. As a whole, the movement challenged classical aesthetic conventions and instead embraced emotion, creative genius, and the imagination. Poetry was an especially vibrant vehicle for the romantic sensibility. The first generation of romantic poets came of age during the French Revolution, including William Wordsworth (1770–1850) who traveled to France in 1790–1791. The possibilities for change seemed endless as events there turned the Old World upside down. Although his and other romantics’ excitement about the Revolution eventually cooled, there was no doubt that it had sparked a parallel revolution in creative expression. In 1798, Wordsworth and his friend and fellow poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge published a collection of poems called Lyrical Ballads, which forged a new path in English poetics. Wordsworth wrote the preface excerpted below for the second edition published in 1800. Here he staked out his own artistic vision while illuminating what became hallmarks of romanticism.

From The Complete Poetical Works of William Wordsworth: Prefatory Essays and Notes (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1911), 4–5, 7–9, 17–19, 21–24.

Several of my Friends are anxious for the success of these Poems, from a belief that, if the views with which they were composed were indeed realised, a class of Poetry would be produced, well adapted to interest mankind permanently, and not unimportant in the quality and in the multiplicity of its moral relations: and on this account they have advised me to prefix a systematic defence of the theory upon which the Poems were written. But I was unwilling to undertake the task, knowing that on this occasion the Reader would look coldly upon my arguments, since I might be suspected of having been principally influenced by the selfish and foolish hope of reasoning him into an approbation of these particular Poems: and I was still more unwilling to undertake the task, because adequately to display the opinions, and fully to enforce the arguments, would require a space wholly disproportionate to a preface. For, to treat the subject with the clearness and coherence of which it is susceptible, it would be necessary to give a full account of the present state of the public taste in this country, and to determine how far this taste is healthy or depraved; which, again, could not be determined without pointing out in what manner language and the human mind act and re-act on each other, and without retracing the revolutions, not of literature alone, but likewise of society itself. I have therefore altogether declined to enter regularly upon this defence; yet I am sensible that there would be something like impropriety in abruptly obtruding upon the Public, without a few words of introduction, Poems so materially different from those upon which general approbation is at present bestowed. . . .

The principal object, then, proposed in these Poems, was to choose incidents and situations from common life, and to relate or describe them throughout, as far as was possible, in a selection of language really used by men, and, at the same time, to throw over them a certain colouring of imagination, whereby ordinary things should be presented to the mind in an unusual aspect; and further, and above all, to make these incidents and situations interesting by tracing in them, truly though not ostentatiously, the primary laws of our nature: chiefly, as far as regards the manner in which we associate ideas in a state of excitement. Humble and rustic life was generally chosen, because in that condition the essential passions of the heart find a better soil in which they can attain their maturity, are less under restraint, and speak a plainer and more emphatic language; because in that condition of life our elementary feelings co-exist in a state of greater simplicity, and, consequently, may be more accurately contemplated, and more forcibly communicated; because the manners of rural life germinate from those elementary feelings, and, from the necessary character of rural occupations, are more easily comprehended, and are more durable; and, lastly, because in that condition the passions of men are incorporated with the beautiful and permanent forms of nature. The language, too, of these men has been adopted . . . because such men hourly communicate with the best objects from which the best part of language is originally derived; and because, from their rank in society and the sameness and narrow circle of their intercourse, being less under the influence of social vanity, they convey their feelings and notions in simple and unelaborated expressions. Accordingly, such a language, arising out of repeated experience and regular feelings, is a more permanent, and a far more philosophical language, than that which is frequently substituted for it by Poets, who think that they are conferring honour upon themselves and their art in proportion as they separate themselves from the sympathies of men, and indulge in arbitrary and capricious habits of expression, in order to furnish food for fickle tastes and fickle appetites of their own creation.

I cannot, however, be insensible to the present outcry against the triviality and meanness, both of thought and language, which some of my contemporaries have occasionally introduced into their metrical compositions; and I acknowledge that this defect, where it exists, is more dishonourable to the Writer’s own character than false refinement or arbitrary innovation, though I should contend at the same time that it is far less pernicious in the sum of its consequences. From such verses the Poems in these volumes will be found distinguished at least by one mark of difference, that each of them has a worthy purpose. Not that I always began to write with a distinct purpose formally conceived, but habits of meditation have, I trust, so prompted and regulated my feelings, that my descriptions of such objects as strongly excite those feelings will be found to carry along with them a purpose. If this opinion be erroneous, I can have little right to the name of a Poet. For all good poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings: and though this be true, Poems to which any value can be attached were never produced on any variety of subjects but by a man who, being possessed of more than usual organic sensibility, had also thought long and deeply. . . .

Taking up the subject, then, upon general grounds, let me ask, what is meant by the word Poet? What is a Poet? To whom does he address himself? And what language is to be expected from him?—He is a man speaking to men: a man, it is true, endowed with more lively sensibility, more enthusiasm and tenderness, who has a greater knowledge of human nature, and a more comprehensive soul, than are supposed to be common among mankind; a man pleased with his own passions, and volitions, and who rejoices more than other men in the spirit of life that is in him; delighting to contemplate similar volitions and passions as manifested in the goings-on of the Universe, and habitually impelled to create them where he does not find them. To these qualities he has added a disposition to be affected more than any other men by absent things as if they were present; an ability of conjuring up in himself passions, which are indeed far from being the same as those produced by real events, yet . . . do more nearly resemble the passions produced by real events than anything which, from the motions of their own minds merely, other men are accustomed to feel in themselves:—whence, and from practice, he has acquired a greater readiness and power in expressing what he thinks and feels, and especially those thoughts and feelings which, by his own choice, or from the structure of his own mind, arise in him without the immediate external excitement. . . .

However exalted a notion we would wish to cherish of the character of a Poet, it is obvious that, while he describes and imitates passions, his employment is in some degree mechanical compared with the freedom and power of real and substantial action and suffering. So that it will be the wish of the Poet to bring his feelings near to those of the persons whose feelings he describes, nay, for short spaces of time, perhaps, to let himself slip into an entire delusion, and even confound and identify his own feelings with theirs; modifying only the language which is thus suggested to him by a consideration that he describes for a particular purpose, of giving pleasure. . . .

Nor let this necessity of producing immediate pleasure be considered as a degradation of the Poet’s art. It is far otherwise. It is an acknowledgment of the beauty of the universe, an acknowledgment the more sincere because not formal, but indirect; it is a task light and easy to him who looks at the world in the spirit of love: further, it is a homage paid to the native and naked dignity of man, to the grand elementary principle of pleasure, by which he knows, and feels, and lives, and moves. We have no sympathy but what is propagated by pleasure: I would not be misunderstood; but wherever we sympathise with pain, it will be found that the sympathy is produced and carried on by subtle combinations with pleasure. We have no knowledge, that is, no general principles drawn from the contemplation of particular facts, but what has been built up by pleasure, and exists in us by pleasure alone. The Man of science, the Chemist and Mathematician, whatever difficulties and disgusts they may have had to struggle with, know and feel this. However painful may be the objects with which the Anatomist’s knowledge is connected, he feels that his knowledge is pleasure; and where he has no pleasure he has no knowledge. What then does the Poet? He considers man and the objects that surround him as acting and re-acting upon each other, so as to produce an infinite complexity of pain and pleasure; he considers man in his own nature and in his ordinary life as contemplating this with a certain quantity of immediate knowledge, with certain convictions, intuitions, and deductions, which from habit acquire the quality of intuitions; he considers him as looking upon this complex scene of ideas and sensations, and finding everywhere objects that immediately excite in him sympathies, which from the necessities of his nature, are accompanied by an overbalance of enjoyment.

To this knowledge which all men carry about with them, and to these sympathies in which, without any other discipline than that of our daily life, we are fitted to take delight, the Poet principally directs his attention. He considers man and nature as essentially adapted to each other, and the mind of man as naturally the mirror of the fairest and most interesting properties of nature. And thus the Poet, prompted by this feeling of pleasure, which accompanies him through the whole course of his studies, converses with general nature, with affections akin to those which, through labour and length of time, the Man of science has raised up in himself, by conversing with those particular parts of nature which are the objects of his studies. The knowledge both of the Poet and the Man of science is pleasure; but the knowledge of the one cleaves to us as a necessary part of our existence, our natural and unalienable inheritance; the other is a personal and individual acquisition, slow to come to us, and by no habitual and direct sympathy connecting us with our fellow-beings. The Man of science seeks truth as a remote and unknown benefactor; he cherishes and loves it in his solitude: the Poet, singing a song in which all human beings join with him, rejoices in the presence of truth as our visible friend and hourly companion. . . . In spite of difference of soil and climate, of language and manners, of laws and customs: in spite of things silently gone out of mind, and things violently destroyed; the Poet binds together by passion and knowledge the vast empire of human society, as it is spread over the whole earth and over all time. The objects of the Poet’s thoughts are everywhere; though the eyes and senses of man are, it is true, his favourite guides, yet he will follow wheresoever he can find an atmosphere of sensation in which to move his wings. Poetry is the first and last of all knowledge—it is as immortal as the heart of man. If the labours of Men of science should ever create any material revolution, direct or indirect, in our condition, and in the impressions which we habitually receive, the Poet will sleep then no more than at present; he will be ready to follow the steps of the Man of science, not only in those general indirect effects, but he will be at his side, carrying sensation into the midst of the objects of the science itself. . . . If the time should ever come when what is now called science, thus familiarised to men, shall be ready to put on, as it were, a form of flesh and blood, the Poet will lend his divine spirit to aid the transfiguration, and will welcome the Being thus produced as a dear and genuine inmate of the household of man.—It is not, then, to be supposed that anyone, who holds that sublime notion of Poetry which I have attempted to convey, will break in upon the sanctity and truth of his pictures by transitory and accidental ornaments, and endeavour to excite admiration of himself by arts, the necessity of which must manifestly depend upon the assumed meanness of his subject.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

  1. According to Wordsworth, how do the language and subject matter of the poems in Lyrical Ballads set them apart from the norm?

    Question

    RHeLwFomwcXJpxutivMYQzw9mWSoLYlLIAh9mJvJZqhOq+L7rnNfAxVmYQKSrAlwss3YjhFew305p9qcBBR5InqH2nlwD+0yS7WTHVsT1nhCaq09iE92nndv2HZliRkbVjMParYjC6wOxqyEDMu1IK/6iKoZZ+v8004noyWXmQf0fLV724BL11aXaBNPPi9BvBm5/xyJfizNd1ikR2gSSJm+yNQwGFjtPfxD7cXGEkA=
    According to Wordsworth, how do the language and subject matter of the poems in Lyrical Ballads set them apart from the norm?
  2. How does Wordsworth define a “poet” and the “poet’s art”? Why does he think it is important to distinguish them from the “man of science” and his endeavors?

    Question

    VmoEaNkyx0bxmrtZ/01Vfl6ZmKmPPbGOqGX5K6W/lIOLRLJ4QGBAkV+Vs1VkgRVh4fwV4l1nIZfjlnA/jnkF1uTWiJD+T93TUOuEYDISz1MYsqvJgaaKxbHmQ53Q4CPN2fxU0aFzHeddeeWXG83I9ZTZd3QwacF87jPbr6GeG2pbTPxzW5TFfEx1p5FXR0KF/hh0LnQwm1tN2K25CZZkBNN1sQLmfkRY+VhTn+VYYLwnvNEUrdKexUm7SvU2rEleUWz8Bw+z9q/UpP4v51d/3Tbo8Jc=
    How does Wordsworth define a “poet” and the “poet’s art”? Why does he think it is important to distinguish them from the “man of science” and his endeavors?
  3. Based on this distinction, what does Wordsworth think that a poet can add to human knowledge and experience that science cannot? In what way do his views reflect core features of romanticism as you understand them?

    Question

    2128oMls2aXGCGjqrsELT0RnWGF3LA+GkV3IXRYqVPiEq0hxxcNXojQHGaUcGYVIH1o6hIxboCsWiaOKzEbXotn6BgYTYzSB4GP16alyULdBxmXe4r/J2bZxUc6WeMljVjpZI0jlNheCNRqq5XacSuEpmqf9+vVOZbM2liUGk/qaEXKc7Ge5pDWZ3Cuvy9d5Z1Na2/2mmkARtxpJvyw8zBgIFkNYuAfVaFbHZQnQz4v/sWZvMmZ/9q1YdGSV6xuD+GEbaHMZLDHdLF1pWBLlhbU5y2KK53ULOTGg8RqRmgdTwNH3K0IqhkNTx7I8iuA5UBMvPTgnjviVPPl2qgMjBw==
    Based on this distinction, what does Wordsworth think that a poet can add to human knowledge and experience that science cannot? In what way do his views reflect core features of romanticism as you understand them?