Lyrical Ballads

 

Wordsworth's theory of poetry as enunciated in the Preface to Lyrical Ballads is full of contradictions". Elaborate.

Or

 

Wordsworth's Preface has been described as “inept in argument and conventional of expression". Discuss."

 

Introduction

 

Wordsworth's Preface to Lyrical Ballads has been criticised on several scores. One of the aspects which has been criticised, is its ineptitude in argument and the contradictory nature of the state -ments propounded. The Preface was written as a defence of a new kind of poetry. It was, indeed, in the nature of 'pamphleteering' as H.W. Garrod points out. Some points are emphasised in an exag -gerated manner so as to force them home to the reader. As such, the Preface suffers from a number of limitations. Much of the adverse criticism evoked by it, is also due to the faulty expression employed by Wordsworth. Many fresh opinions and ideas have not been expressed clearly. As a result, it often seems that Wordsworth's theory of poetry is full of contradictions. But when we examine the views carefully, we find that the contradictions are more apparent (in most cases) than real and inherent. The charge of ineptitude in argumentation, however, Wordsworth cannot escape completely. But then, as George Waston observes, Wordsworth never really wanted to be a critic.

 

Contradictions in Wordsworth's theory of language for poetry

 

The contradictions are most apparent in Wordsworth's theory of the language of poetry. Firmly and strongly condemning the eighteenth century poetic diction, he advocates simplicity and plainness of speech. He wants to show that the real language of men can be and should be employed in poetry. So far so good. Even Dryden had insisted on the necessity of using 'ordinary' speech for poetry. But then Wordsworth makes a qualification. The language should be a 'selection of the language of men in a vivid state of sensation

 

Coleridge promptly attacked the need for 'selection'; after which, he said, the language would in no way be different from that of other men of common sense. The objection was possible precisely because  Wordsworth has not made himself clear on the point. He does not explain, though we can infer it, that the selective process is necessary to his conception of imaginative creation. The language of poetry must be 'real' i.e., a true and not false language. But because it is poetry, it will not be the language of commonsense, but so much of the real language of men as will make up into' imagination, as H.W. Garrod elucidates.

 

Terms and phrases are not clearly explained

 

Wordsworth does not explain what excatly he meant by the term real". The failure made him vulnerable to all future attacks on his theory, especially by Coleridge. We can infer the true implications of Wordsworth's use of the term, but he himself does not elucidate it beyond doubt. Coleridge declares that Wordsworth should use of the term 'ordinary'. But actually, Wordsworth's concern does not seem to have been with the single words or the grammatical order of prose discourse, but with figurative departures from literal discourse. Wordsworth's intention is to show that such deviations are justifiable in verse only when they have the same psychological causes that they have in the 'artless' speech of every day, i.e., they are prompted by true feelings and emotions. Real language apparently means that language which is prompted by true feeling, in which there is a correspondence between the words and the thought or emotion which prompts it. But we have to 'interpret' Wordsworth's views to arrive at the conclusion; he himself does not propound his arguments in a lucid or unambiguous manner.

 

When Wordsworth declares that the language of prose and metrical composition is the same, he again left himself open to the sharp contradiction by Coleridge. It is once again the result of not having explained what he meant by the term 'language'. Did he mean merely vocabulary? Or did he mean arrangement of words, use of imagery, and syntax as well, for the term 'language can imply all these factors also.

 

Defective argumentation in defending metre

 

The ineptitude in argument and its contradictory nature, is well evident in Wordsworth's defence of metre. The poet, he says, employs metre, because it is a mode of expression serving recognized laws. It possesses a charm of its own. Metre also operates to 'temper and restrain' the 'painful feeling', which mixes always with such 'powerful descriptions of the deeper passions' as are achieved by the use in poetry, of "language closely resembling that of real life". No one can deny the obscurity and difficulty in Wordsworth's argument regarding metre. On the face of it, Wordsworth seems to be saying that the poet first resolves to use the language of real life because it is more powerful than any other, and that then-as though he felt that he had gone too far-he endeavours to save the situation by taking refuge in metre. Metre, says Wordsworth, divests language in a certain degree, of its reality. Does this mean that the poet is to lift passion by the employment of real language merely for the purpose presently lowering it by the use of metre? Wordsworth has expressed parts of his Preface in language "not sufficiently calculated", as H.W. Garrod remarks.

 

Apparent contradiction in his views on poetic process

 

Wordsworth's theory of the process of poetic creation is, similarly, couched in a language which leads to confusion. Indeed, at first sight, the definition of poetry and its origin seem contradictory:

 

Poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings : it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquillity: the emotion is contemplated till, by a species of reaction, the tranquillity gradually disappears, and an emotion, kindred to that which was before the subject of contemplation, is gradually produced, and does itself actually exist.

 

How can poetry be a spontaneous overflow and yet take its origin in emotion recollected in tranquillity? The trouble lies in the verb 'is' in the first sentence. The implication of the 'is' must be, 'is the final product of Poetry, in other words, is the final product of the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings. Further, 'spontaneous does not indicate, as most readers would take it to indicate, sudden ness, but something like 'unforced'.

 

Wordsworth's concept of the poet as a man speaking to men makes him adopt the position that there is merely a difference of degree between the poet and other men, and not of kind. But the difference in degree is so vast that one wonders if it were not tanta mount to saying that the poet is a different kind of person altogether. But no other position would have been consistent with his democratizing concept, with his faith alike in humble life and humble language, and with his strong sympathy with the ballad literature.

 

Conclusion

 

Wordsworth, then, is rather loose and incautious in his phrasing, so that he lends himself open to refutation on various points. There are a number of instances in his Preface which seem full of contradictions because his argumentation is defective. His terminology is, more often than not, conventional. When he says that poetry should imply "the general language of humanity", or when he appeals to the "common principles which govern first-rate writers in all nations and tongues", Wordsworth actually ends in good Neo classicism, as Rene Wellek puts it. However, though much of the Preface is inept in argument, and because of this, seemingly full of contradictions, the value of the work can not be under-rated. The Preface remains rich in suggestions, anticipations, and personal insights.