Erica's class summary

British Romantic Literature class on Tuesday, February 22, began promptly with a reward quiz. After repetitions of some questions, Professor Foss showed great bravery in teaching class with an Atomic Fireball in his mouth. He outlined the day’s discussion format, which integrated “the pleasures of intertextual reading” with the dynamics of small-group/large-group discussion. Through much of the first small-group meeting, focused on poems by Thelwall and Opie, questions concerning the private sphere and Probablism foregrounded discussion. As we moved into large-group, we focused on depictions of the poor in William Wordsworth’s poetry and Dorothy Wordsworth’s journal. We examined another William Wordsworth poem in the second round of small-group discussion, themes from previous discussions carrying into the end of class. Through these discussions, our class considered Thelwall’s notions of innocence, Amelia Opie’s insight in privileging the domestic sphere, “The Orphan Boy’s Tale” and discrepancy with Probablism, the Wordsworths’ shortcomings in giving the poor a voice, and how Keats’s criticism of the “egotistical sublime” applies in William Wordsworth’s “Composed on Westminster Bridge, Sept. 3, 1803."

First, in the theme of society and political economy, Professor Foss asked the class to consider if and how Romantic authors privilege the private sphere and how Probablism, meant to be realistic and democratic, fits in the Imagination/Irony dialectic. In small-group, we examined John Thelwall’s “To the Infant Hampden—” and compared it to Coleridge’s “The Nightingale” by how each author frames his topic in relation to his son (Hampden for Thelwall, Hartley for Coleridge). Thelwall’s parallel between Hampden’s ignorance of nature’s tempest-winds and his ignorance of Thelwall’s own persecution creates an equivalence relationship wherein nature, here a destructive force, is equated with “a patriot’s sorrows.” (line 19) Simultaneously Thelwall defines innocence as ignorance, challenging Coleridge’s concept of innocence as seen in his intention to “make [Hartley] Nature’s playmate.” (line 97) Furthermore, referring back to William Blake, this depiction of innocence as tabula rasa ranks sentience with Experience’s negative aspects, challenging the importance and power of human imagination. Both poems, however, showed preference for the domestic sphere, as did the rest we examined in the first small-group session.

Next we compared Thelwall’s “Maria” with Opie’s "Lines Respectfully Inscribed to the Society for the Relief of Persons Imprisoned for Small Debts" and William Wordsworth’s “I Griev’d for Buonaparte.” All of these place importance on the private sphere, but my group noticed that Opie’s “Lines…” goes further, seeking a new patriotism based on service in the private sphere. This contrasts with “I Griev’d…” and “Maria,” the latter of which depicts solidarity with martyrs as a comfort, albeit one surpassed by family. Though Wordsworth and Thelwall both value the domestic sphere, Thelwall views it as a sort of pit stop in his struggle for justice, and Wordsworth’s idyllic home where “Wisdom doth live with children round her knees” (line 9) comes across as unreal. As a woman and a traditional inhabitant of the domestic, Opie seems more realistic. She recognizes strife from encroaching war as well as those who pay kindness to others, valuing their work over “the conqueror’s deeds,....the awful works of death.” (line 5) So while Thelwall and Wordsworth glorify the private sphere as paradise, Opie raises concerns about issues in the private sphere. With Probablistic bent, she depicts the private sphere as a place with problems, in need of heroes.

Examining another Opie poem, however, my group noticed that it glossed over domestic dysfunction. We compared “The Orphan Boy’s Tale” with Mary Darby Robinson’s “All Alone.” Right away, someone noted that Opie’s orphan is less “emo” than Robinson’s parallel: receptive, friendly, and overwhelmingly grateful for help. His appreciation is an ideal response, an attempt to show that kindness yields rewards. Comparing it to “All Alone” exposes the poem’s shortcomings. Robinson’s orphan is too grief-stricken to tend to his own survival. He cannot appreciate another’s concern, and the speaker does not help once she fails to affect his mood, raising questions about Opie’s “lady’s” motives. Unlike events in Opie’s poem, no war threatens the private sphere. The boy’s life begins to falls apart while his mother is still with him, illustrating the problematic nature of the domestic sphere. Opie’s work is highly idealized in comparison. While “Lines…” shows insight into real-world domesticity compared with corresponding works, “The Orphan Boy’s Tale” is not a realistic scenario or representative of Probablism.

In large-group, we recognized similar discrepancies with probable reality in William Wordsworth’s “Resolution and Independence.” Professor Foss opened discussion by recalling John Keats’ criticism of the “egotistical sublime” in William Wordsworth’s poetry; he then noted that William’s sister, Dorothy, whose journal recounts the leech-gatherer’s appearance and who helped William write the poem itself, is unmentioned in the poem. Professor Foss read the poem and supplied accompanying commentary before turning to us. We discussed the contradictory depiction of the leech-man; William says that he looks “Like a sea beast crawl’d forth,” (line 69) blending him with the scenery, and then he says he spoke with “Choice word, and measured phrase; above the reach/Of ordinary men,” (lines 102-103) and describes him as a hard-working, persevering man. This combination of dehumanization and elevation unsettled us and brought our attention to other subtleties, like how the speaker of “Resolution and Independence” barely listens to the what the leech-gatherer says, thinking instead that he is “like a Man from some far region sent,/To give me human strength.” (lines 118-119) We came to the conclusion that the leech-gatherer is not a person in the poem, but a device for William’s speaker to ponder his place in the universe. Dorothy Wordsworth’s journal entry on the real-life encounter solidifies this opinion—the entry says the old man had stopped gathering leeches to pursue other employment when they met. While Wm. (pronounced like the light-saber sounds from “Star Wars”) may not have heard anything the man said, Dorothy quotes him directly. William’s scant reference to any hard fact about the old man shows that he only serves the speaker’s self-seeking purposes. The poem, though it gives brief voice to unemployment and poverty, is ultimately the poet’s reflection on himself. Dorothy is only slightly more interested in the poor, writing more often about the leisurely walks she takes and, in one instance, juxtaposing a young woman’s story involving three children in a pauper’s grave with “Oh! that I had a letter from William!” (664) Both Wordsworths, due to their lifestyle, lack complete empathy with the poor, raising questions about any poet’s attempt to give voice to the poor.

In small-group again, we compared “Composed on Westminster Bridge, Sept. 3, 1803” with a Robinson poem. We noticed that Wordsworth’s poem, compared to “A London Summer Morning,” is an idealized portrait of a city devoid of sounds and people. Remembering previous discussion, we said that William appropriated the city to depict the calm of morning, never mind that the city may be ill-suited for it. Robinson’s poem, using sensory images, presents a sample of London’s social strata in a scene that seems likely due to the amount of detail Robinson includes. (Two in favor of Robinson and Probablism, for those counting.) Time ran out before we could compare Jane Taylor’s “A Pair” with Robinson’s “The Poor, Singing Dame,” but Professor Foss gave the optional assignment of examining Dorothy Wordsworth’s other journal entries for encounters with the poor. Contemplating these appropriations, Probablism, and the domestic sphere, we left class with the question of “What is Romanticism?” richly and infuriatingly complicated.