Summary and Analysis of Three Criticisms from, "Appendix B: Initial Responses to the Poem [The Ring and The Book]"

Summary of, “Richelieu” [unidentified], Vanity Fair 1 (November 28, 1868): 46-47

            Within this criticism the author discusses how well he/ she, (the author is unknown), has enjoyed Browning’s, The Ring and the Book. The author also discusses how this work is a “protest against the atheistic belief that men and women are the creatures of the circumstances” (774). The author believes that Browning is the “spiritual athlete” of poetry, and that it is  most apparent within this particular work of his (774). Not only does the author believe that Browning is the spiritual athlete of poetry, but he/ she also believes that Browning brings new thoughts to the area of poetry. The author actually compares Browning’s ideas to a Roman gladiator, and that it is not an actual fight that Browning is in, but instead a fight with reality, that he seems to have won. This critic does believe, however, that The Ring and The Book, is not for everyone. The author states, “If people do not want the reality, with the occasional ruggedness of Nature, they had better not trouble themselves to open the book…” (774). While this critic believes that Browning’s ideas are what have set him apart from other poets, he/ she also believes that it is Browning’s ideas that also may repel some readers from his work.

Summary of, [Unsigned], Spectator 41 (December 12, 1868): 1464-66

            Within this criticism the author feels that Browning’s work within, The Ring and The Book, is some of his [Browning’s] best by far.  Although the author does feel that Browning follows some of his “typical” routines within this work, much like his others, the author still believes that The Ring and The Book had created something more than some of Browning’s other works were able to do. The author states, “[Browning] overflows, as he always overflows, in intellectual point, in acute comment, in quaint illness. He is, as he always is, semi-dramatic, with the keenest of all eyes for every qualifying circumstance which alters the point of view each age and each individual,--never quite dramatic, for we never lost sight of the critical eye of the poet himself…” (774-775). Although this portion from the criticism may seem as though the author is being judgmental of Browning’s work, as we read further into the criticism we see that the author is actually stating that because Browning does all of these things within his work and because he keeps his work unique, it makes his work all the better.  Later in the criticism the author compares Browning’s work to that of an artist. “He [Browning] paints, as he always paints, with wonderful swiftness and brilliance, but also with a certain willful carelessness and singularity,--somewhat like the qualities in old David Cox’s fine water-colour sketches,--and with a singular contempt for sweetness and finish style” (775). The author of this criticism believes that once the reader is able to look past Browning’s obscurities, past all of the odd language, and past the “irregular style” of Browning’s work, that is when the reader will truly be able to see the beauty of it all (776). This critic believes that it is Browning’s obscurities that makes his work so wonderful. Much like an artist, Browning uses his own unique style within each of his works, and that is what this critic believes, sets Browning apart from other poets of his time.

Summary of, [Robert W. Buchanan], Athenaeum (December 26, 1868): 875-76

            Within this criticism Robert W. Buchanan begins by stating that no other works from Browning have ever truly allowed Browning to show all of his “peculiarities” (777). Buchanan believes that The Ring and The Book  is an exceptional piece and that Browning truly has no rivals because his work sets him so far apart, (in a good way), from other poets. “Everything Browningish is found here,--the legal jauntiness, the knitted argumentation, the cunning prying into detail, the suppressed tenderness, the humanity,--the salt intellectual humor,” this work is all Browning and it is all wonderful, in the eyes of Buchanan. Buchanan continues on within his criticism to compare Browning to Dickens. Although Buchanan believes that the two writers do have a few similarities, Buchanan believes that it is not just their similarities that make them both great, but also their unique approaches that they have to their writing. While Buchanan believes that Browning’s obscurities are what makes his work worth reading, he knows that these obscurities are the things that also repel readers from Browning’s works. However, like other critics, Buchanan believes that a reader must look past the obscurities within Browning’s poetry in order to see the beauty within them. At the end of the criticism, Buchanan states that while Browning’s monologue has seemed to replace Shakespeare’s drama, it is not one or the other that society needs, but both; as both works are equally wonderful and well-executed in their own manner(s) of uniqueness.  

Analysis of the three works

            These criticisms were very interesting to me because many of the criticisms that I have read on Browning’s work have been rather negative, in terms of how they, the critics, feel that Browning’s work was executed. Many critics did not feel that Browning had any purpose behind his work and most did not understand the obscure ways in which Browning executed his writings. So, when I read these criticisms I was somewhat surprised that all three of the critics took to, The Ring and The Book, extremely well.
            It is rather unfortunate that Browning’s works did not receive positive recognition until his wife, Elizabeth, died. Although Browning’s works are very obscure in thought and execution, they have an interesting tone to them. For example, within “Childe Rolan to the Dark Tower Came,” readers do not fully know whether Childe Rolan is physically on the quest to the dark tower, or whether he is emotionally/ religiously on a quest within his self to find a great understanding within his life. Although, the readers are not told whether or not Childe Rolan is physically or mentally on the quest, that it part of what makes this particular poem some great. Readers are not told how they need to perceive the poem; instead they are given the ability to perceive it themselves.  Although this is part of what many earlier critics disliked about Browning’s poems—the inability for them to get to a true “purpose,”—it seems to me that this is one of Browning’s greatest qualities. Browning does not have to relay a “purpose” to his readers because his purpose belongs to his readers. I believe that these three critics were completely right, in the fact that once you allow yourself to see past the obscurities of Browning’s work that you can finally see the beauty behind them as well. Browning’s work is beautiful in its own way, much like a painter’s art, and what is wonderful about a painter’s work and Browning’s work is that both allow their viewers to determine their own meaning and purpose behind what is intended for them to see.

Works Cited:

[Unsigned], Spectator 41 (December 12, 1868): 1464-66. Ed. Thomas J. Collins and Richard D. Altick. Ontario: Broadview Editions, 2001. 774-75. Print.

"Richelieu" [unidentified], Vanity Fair 1 (November 28, 1868): 46-47. Ed. Thomas J. Collins and Richard D. Altick. Ontario: Broadview Editions, 2001. 774. Print.

[Robert W. Buchanan], Athenaeum (December 26, 1868): 875-76. Ed. Thomas J. Collins and Richard D. Altick. Ontario: Broadview Editions, 2001. 777-78. Print.

© [Mykenzie Fox] [http: // COUNTGISMOND.blogspot.com/ ], [2013]. Unauthorized use and/ or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog's author and/ or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to [Mykenzie Fox] and [http: // COUNTGISMOND.blogspot.com/ ] with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.