Two Studies In Romanticism (Press, 27 February 1954)

On 27 February 1954, a review was published regarding two significant works on Romantic poetry, highlighting their contributions and drawbacks in the field of literary analysis. The first book, authored by Mr Humphrey House, focuses on the renowned poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge. House aims to dissect the intricacies of Coleridge’s character and thought processes while offering an extensive analysis of his major poems, particularly exploring the poet's doctrine of imagination. The review acknowledges House's brilliance in depicting Coleridge's agile and perceptive mind, noting that his insights mimic the poet's own reflective processes. House's examination of Coleridge's style and his relationship with late eighteenth-century poetry, specifically his connections to Cowper, is praised for its depth and clarity. However, the reviewer expresses some reservations about House's interpretations of "The Ancient Mariner" and "Kubla Khan," suggesting that they may be overly influenced by other literary critiques. Still, the review commends House for his insights regarding "Christabel" and the "Rejection Ode," for which he provides a complete version as an appendix. The reviewer concludes that a more comprehensive understanding of Coleridge's work awaits the eventual publication of the Coleridge notebooks, which have plagued scholars with their slow editing process. The second book reviewed is by Sir Herbert Read, which is divided into two parts. In the first half, Read elaborates on his well-known idea of "organic form" in poetry, asserting that this concept was a significant discovery by the Romantics. However, the reviewer finds Read's argument increasingly problematic, with the term "form" becoming vague and lacking precise definition. The review appreciates Read's observations about rhythm and diction when he departs from his broader thesis, suggesting that these moments produce more valuable insights. In the second part of Read's book, which includes reprinted essays, the review points out that these writings, except for a perceptive essay on Byron, offer little value. Read attempts to align Coleridge's criticism with existentialist thought, but the reviewer criticises this approach, particularly his attempt to connect Wordsworth with Kierkegaard's philosophy through a visionary experience. The reviewer suggests that while the essence of mystery and intuition is present in Wordsworth's work, linking him with existentialism is an overreach. Finally, the essay “In Defence of Shelley,” which argues Shelley’s supposed repressed homosexuality, is described as flawed. The reviewer feels that while Shelley’s contribution as a great poet deserves defending in times of criticism, the arguments presented by Read are insufficient and misguided. The review underscores the need for more founded defence of Shelley’s legacy, indicating that the contemporary analysis should move beyond Read’s approaches. Overall, the review presents a critical perspective on these works, acknowledging their intellectual efforts while also calling attention to their inadequacies in appraisal and scholarship.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand