"Victorian Views"

In this blog, I will be summarizing and analyzing three criticisms about Robert Browning. The first one will be Gerard Manley Hopkins’ “Strictures on Browning”, the second one will be Oscar Wilde’s “Browning as “Writer of Fiction”” and the last one will be John Ruskin’s “Browning and the Italian Renaissance”.

Gerard Manley Hopkins’ “Strictures on Browning”

In his criticism, Hopkins first explains that there is strictures in Browning’s writings: “Browning has, I think, many frigidities. Any untruth to nature, to human nature, is frigid”. To illustrate his idea, Hopkins refers to Charles Kingsley and Alfred Tennyson. Then Hopkins refers to William Shakespeare in order to oppose Browning to him. In a second part, Hopkins explains that he read a part of Browning’s The Ring and the Book but he did not find it interesting enough to read the all work: “I did not see, without a particular object, sufficient reason for going on with it.” The he compares Honoré de Balzac to Browning.

Hopkins criticizes Browning’s way to deal with human nature. Indeed, he explains that there are what he calls “frigidities”. Then he explains the sense of this word, that is to say “an untruth to nature, to human nature”. Through Hopkins’ criticism, Browning is compared to several writers in order to reinforce Hopkins’ thesis. For instance, to Hopkins, Browning does not have “a reserve and a simplicity of style” as Balzac has. Having read some of Balzac’s works, I agree with Hopkins about the difference of style in their writings. But is it appropriate to compare two writers who did not write the same kind of works and not in the same language ? At the end of his criticism, Hopkins writes: “Indeed, I hold with the oldfashioned criticism that Browning is not really a poet, that he has all the gifts but the one needful and the pearls without the string; rather one should say raw nuggets and rough diamonds.”

 

John Ruskin’s “Browning and the Italian Renaissance”

In his criticism, John Ruskin explains that many writers of his time and of the past have been interested in the Italian Renaissance : “How far in these modern days, emptied of splendor, it may be necessary for great men having sympathies for those earlier ages”. Then Ruskin gives his opinion concerning Browning and his writings about Italian Renaissance and makes a comparison between him and Shakespeare. Eventually, Ruskin writes about what he thinks of Browning’s poetry.

Ruskin praises Browning’s work, as we can read : “Robert Browning is unerring in every sentence he writes of the Middle-Ages; always vital, right, and profound”. Through his criticism, it is quite obvious to see Ruskin’s admiration for Browning. We can see it, for instance, when he compares Browning to Shakespeare. Indeed, once again, Browning is compared to him but this comparison is different from the one Hopkins made. Here, Ruskin explains that Shakespeare’s work and Browning’s work about the Italian Renaissance are different because they did not live at the same time and did not experienced the same things (we must remember that Browning lived in Italy, but not during the Italian Renaissance) : “the modern poet, living much in Italy, and quit of the Renaissance influence, is able fully to enter into the Italian feeling, and to see the evil of the Renaissance tendency, not because he is greater than Shakespeare, but because he is another element, and has seen other things”. Ruskin thinks that Browning really understood the “Renaissance spirit” : “I know no other piece of modern English, prose or poetry, in which there is so much told, as in these lines, of the Renaissance spirit,- its worldliness, inconsistency, pride, hypocrisy, ignorance or itself, love of art, luxury, and of good Latin”.

Oscar Wilde’s “Browning as “Writer of Fiction””

Wilde first criticizes the Browning Society : “seem to me to spend their time in trying to explain their divinity away”. He also criticizes Browning’s work, but both in a negative and positive way, as we can read: “But I speak merely of his incoherent work. Taken as a whole, the man was great.” Wilde explains that the music of Browning’s poetry was not harmonious. But the second part of his criticism, Wilde gives his opinion concerning the fiction in Browning’s poetry.

In his criticism, Wilde gives his negative opinion of Browning’s poetry and especially its musicality and its rhymes: “There are moments when he wounds us by monstrous music”. But even if he expresses his dislike concerning Browning’s way to write poetry, he still praises him through his text: “the man was great”, “Still, he was great”, “Even now, I am speaking, and speaking not against him but for him”, “Yes, Browning was great”. Indeed, Wilde sings the praise of Browning as a writer of fiction: “And as what will he be remembered ? As a poet ? Ah, not as a poet ! He will be remembered as a writer of fiction, as the most supreme writer of fiction, it may be, that we have ever had”. Here, Wilde shows his admiration for Browning. I believe that even if it is true that Browning’s poem are often narrative, we should remember his as a poet because poetry is not only a matter of rhymes.